Talk:Benjamin Tompson

New article

Added sources and content welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1676 Benjamin Tompson was the first poet in the American colonies to have his poems printed and published?  Sources:  Hall, 1924, p. 22;  Wroth, 1938, p. 258;  Fussell, 1953, p. 494
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/María Elva Pinckert
  • Comment: Statements and sources supporting hook can be found in the 'Vocations' section

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 00:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC).

Issues from the first time around The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - Other problems

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Gwillhickers: Good article. However, the hook and what's in the article don't exactly seem to match up in a way that bothers me. For example, in the article it says "the first collection of American poems to be printed in what is the American colonies" while the hook says "was the first poet in the American colonies to have his poems printed and published". I feel like the hook should be a bit more specific here because of that. I'm being picky here because of how DYK is with "First" hooks. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Onegreatjoke: — Thanks for your thorough review. Sorry about the delay - was under the weather for a few days there. I added the following statement to the lede, and it already occurs in the Vocation section. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

ALT1  ...Benjamin Tompson (pictured) is credited for being the first native born poet to emerge in North-America?   < Hall, 1924, pp. 1, 22 >< Fussell, 1953, p. 494 >

Approving Alt1. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and Onegreatjoke: the first published native born poet, though, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, in order to establish the idea of 'first poet' you have to establish the idea in terms of tangible evidence -- published works. Otherwise, all historians would have is a speculation or an assumption that Tompson was the first at anything. See: <Wroth, 1938, p. 258> <Hall, 1924, p. 13> <Fussell, 1953, p. 500> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging @Theleekycauldron, Gwillhickers, and Onegreatjoke: Need clarity on hooks and agreement of those involved, I am not seeing that all issues have been resolved. Bruxton (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
• How about an ALT1a: ... that Benjamin Tompson (pictured) is credited as the first native born published poet to emerge in North America? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  theleekycauldron The end of ALT1a gets wordy with the alliteration. Also the hook leads me to believe he is a Native American; but he's not a native in the way many would refer to natives. Bruxton (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  I see nothing wrong with ALT1, which reads "native born poet", and is well sourced. Most Indians, then and now, didn't/don't consider themselves as an American of any kind. "Native-American" was a term invented by white politicians to placate their critics and other constituents, and more than suggests that the generations of settlers and their descendants who were born and raised in America are native to no country. If this causes anyone to get confused all they have to do is read the lede to the article, which makes it perfectly clear that Tompson wasn't an Indian. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, that's not wrong, but "native born" does give the wrong connotation. I think using American colonies from the ALT0 would work well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• This is the term the sources use, and used in the proper context doesn't imply anything wrong, imo. Again, the lede, not to mention the article, makes things clear. Also, I have to say, it's wrong that the term "native" has been reserved, by some people, for only one race of people, as if other lives don't matter. We could always use the original hook if someone is going to make a big issue over matters of opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Removed my objection and placed leeky sig in correct place. Promoting ALT1 Bruxton (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Article contains too-close paraphrasing. Compare for example "Like other poets, Tompson developed his writing by patient practice during hours not involved with his teaching responsibilities" with "Tompson, like other early poets, developed his craft by patient practice during hours unoccupied by his classroom responsibilities", or "definitive example of cultivated standard of achievement in verse in New England in the late seventeenth century" with "represents the cultivated standard of achievement in verse in New England in the late seventeenth century". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I was not aware of this - you have moved this from the prep but you did not ping any of the involved parties (@Theleekycauldron, Gwillhickers, and Onegreatjoke:. You have placed the close paraphrasing banner on the article but it would be far more helpful to help fix the issue. Bruxton (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: this appears to be a recurring problem on Gwillhickers' DYK noms – fixing it is probably not a reasonable ask for an admin copypatroller (my bad, i could've sworn!) with lots more to do. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: they are not an admin. But I guess this one is kaput now. Bruxton (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, Bruxton, Onegreatjoke, and Theleekycauldron: — The phrases in question have been reworded. Bearing in mind
CLOP: "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing."
It would seem the phrase, "cultivated standard of achievement in verse" is one such example. I had always thought that some similarities were allowed in such cases when used in the context of one's own words, which has always been the case. In any event, I've gone through the article and checked for other issues. If anyone sees something I may have missed please bring it to my attention. If there are no more issues I'm hoping to get this Nom back on track. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It is always possible to directly quote unique turns of phrase like that one. But again, direct copying is not the only problem to avoid. Consider this example: "Tompson lived to the age of seventy-two, during which time he had the opportunity to produce a good deal of poetry over a period of fifty-five years. From the 1658 poem on Samuel Arnold to his last work in 1713, Tompson wrote at least twenty-nine poems" vs the source's "Because he lived to the age of seventy-two, Tompson had the opportunity to produce a good deal of poetry over a long period of time. In the fifty-five years of his productivity, from the 1658 poem on Samuel Arnold to his "last lines" of 1713, Tompson wrote at least twenty-nine poems". There are pieces of this that are truly limited - but placed in the context of others that are only slightly altered, the whole still consists of close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The statement has been reworded and simplified. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Onegreatjoke: Would you give the article another review so we can wrap this up? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I think I'm going to give this review to someone else as I lack confidence in reviewing this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I can re-review this now. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'm going to give the go-ahead for the original hook on this one; while there is a dispute tag present, it seems that the issues were resolved in the above discussion; just from a brief comparison, it seems to be fine. If anyone objects, please feel free to say something. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Gwillhickers and MyCatIsAChonk: the tag is gonna need to come off before approval, and I'm not seeing evidence that anyone's done a full copyright check, which is what this article needs. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• And why does this article spend, like, almost 300 words talking about what Tompson's dad did before he was born? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Theleekycauldron and MyCatIsAChonk: — Theleekycauldron, thanks for taking another look at the article. I've gone through the article several times and haven't found outright copyright violations, because general facts and ideas cannot be copyrighted.

• WP:FACTSONLY:  Facts and ideas cannot be protected by copyright, but creative expression is protected.
• WP:LIMITED:  In this example, the wording of the article is very close to that of both sources. However, the article merely presents standard facts for a topic like this in standard sequence. The article does not copy any creative words or phrases...

If there are any creative words or phrases, unique interpretations, or outright copy pasting, aside from short general phrases, I'll get right on it and fix them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, the article covers Tompson's family background at some length, which gives the Tompson biography good historical background. If you see something pressing that needs to be removed, I'll consider removing it. The article has been approved twice, so I'm hoping, all things considered here, we can move forward.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: Thank you for clarifying all of this and for checking the article. If you feel it is completely free of all possible copyvios, you could remove the dispute tag at the top. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks MyCatIsAChonk.  I'd still like to go through the article one more time and check on matters. Right now I'm trying to verify that Tompson's parents were "devoted Puritans". Will ping you when I'm sure about that item. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: I added the proper noun Puritan to the lede and removed "devoted Puritan" from the Family background section, as the source doesn't actually say that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Thanks for your changes to the article. I do not currently have the time in the coming days to do a full review of the article, but again, if you feel the issue has been addressed, you can remove the tag. If you do choose it's all good, ping me and I'm happy to promote it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: I'd prefer if a reviewer removed the tag, because if I did so it would be sort of like reviewing mt own article. Before you do, and when you have the time you might want to take a look at this discussion and add your two cents. It would be appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Ok, I've done a moderately thorough review. After comparing the pages cited to the prose in the article, it seems that any CLOP problems have been fixed; I removed the dispute tag from the top. Note that I didn't read every relevant page of every source, I only read the ones that were cited, so there could possibly be ones I didn't see. In this process, I amazingly discovered another problem; a number of the cited pages didn't support the claims they were linked to. I added citation needed tags as appropriate; if any of these were a mistake, please feel free to clarify that with me. Good luck! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• @MyCatIsAChonk: — Thanks. I cited the items in question and temporarily removed one footnote until I can re-locate the specific citation for it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, this is now approved since citation and CLOP problems have been addressed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: which hook are you approving? Bruxton (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Oops, sorry about that; I'll approve ALT0 and ALT1, but I prefer ALT1 because I think it's more comprehensible. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and MyCatIsAChonk: Hook has been pulled per Special:Permalink/1141494951#Prep 2 Benjamin Tompson – we'll need another one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Ok, here's and ALT that's completely unrelated to previous hooks. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that Benjamin Tompson's poem Harvardine Quils called for writers in New England to memorialize the losses in King Philip's War?

I do not believe it was necessary to pull this hook to tweak. I am disturbed. Some perspective: this was nominated 1/4 year ago - and while there were legitimate concerns, now it is just tinkering. Leeky had a suggestion and I added the word "called" to her hook. "Billed" as I said seems wrong and it is a "show word" in this context, like he was billed at a theatre. Another thing, the more these hooks are fussed with the more literal they get. The hook pull here is really over the top and discouraging and totally unnecessary. Bruxton (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

ALT3:... that publishers of Benjamin Tompson's work called him the "first native-born poet of America"? Bruxton (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks MyCatIsAChonk for jumping in with more hook ideas (and sorry for omitting you on Talk page CC). I really like ALT2 but am stuck on the wording of "memorialize the losses" – memorialize whose losses? Not sure how to fix, one possibility might be:

• ALT2a: ... that Benjamin Tompson's poem "Harvardine Quils" called for writers in New England to memorialize the loss of "whole towns and Churches" in King Philip's War?

The downside of that is that maybe it's too "complete" for a hook, but then again, DYK rarely mentions King Philip's War and there is a lot there that makes you wonder what was going on. I really like this approach though because it calls attention to the actual content and subject matter of his work, which is compelling, rather than getting caught up in the "was he really first" ERRORS page wars. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Cielquiparle, Bruxton, and MyCatIsAChonk: Thanks for your comments and advice. Yes, the article has been approved three times now, and now this. I'm seriously considering never nominating another article for DYK if I have to wade through this sort of thing. I'll let another closer decide which hook to run with at this point.Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. I hope you continue to submit articles here. Myself I am going to leave the nomination to others since I have twice been reverted promoting this nom to a prep. I feel like my own original questions about the "native" terminology contributed to this prolonged consternation. For that I apologize. Bruxton (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "native born poet" is a term used by several sources. That debate has occurred before, with the idea that only the American Indian can called a native, which more than suggests that the settlers, fleeing religious and political persecution who were born here, along with their parents, grandparents, etc, were native to no country, as if their lives didn't matter. During Tompson's time (1642–1714) no one was referred to as "Americans", much less "native Americans", the latter being a term invented by white politicians in the 20th century. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding this here, I feel that it's not proper for me to approve this again since I have twice now. For whoever comes next, here are the two hooks on the table:

• ALT2a: ... that Benjamin Tompson's poem "Harvardine Quils" called for writers in New England to memorialize the loss of "whole towns and Churches" in King Philip's War?
• ALT3:... that publishers of Benjamin Tompson's work called him the "first native-born poet of America"?

Thanks everyone, we're so close to getting this on the front page! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. You are the third reviewer who has been driven away. It will be sort of amazing if another will be willing to get wrapped up in this mess anytime soon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll approve both ALT2a and ALT3. (Even though I proposed ALT2a, it's a relatively minor modification of the hook proposed by MyCatIsAChonk whom I understood was withdrawing mainly due to the "involved party" problem.) Thanks everyone for your patience. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

As the editor who proposed ALT3 at WT:DYK, I'm going to strike it for the reasons I expressed there – it seems puffy, not to mention insensitive. ALT2a, of course, remains good to go :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: In that case, could I request that you promote ALT2a now? Your involvement in this discussion has been limited to providing feedback on various hook proposals, and the final approved hook is not one you proposed. If there are any further questions about the hook or article at DYK Talk or Errors, I am happy to be on the hook to address any questions or concerns (though I'm optimistic given the amount of time invested in resolving various issues to date). Cielquiparle (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone. Cielquiparle The article is still good to go with ALT2a and is listed in the staging area. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)