Talk:Dragonesque brooch

• 9611 views! Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you know 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 Bruxton talk 15:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Dragonesque brooch found in Yorkshire

• ... that if the double-headed Romano-British dragonesque brooch type represents any real animal, it may be hares rather than dragons? Source: Johns, Catherine, The Jewellery of Roman Britain: Celtic and classical traditions, p. 152, 1996, UCL Press, google books
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Created by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 23:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Dragonesque brooch; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Forgot to include - new article started 16 December
• New article, long enough, sourced throughout. Hook is sourced and mentioned in the article. Image displays clearly as a thumbnail and greatly enhances the hook so should be given the image slot. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod and Ficaia: Interesting article. I found the hook fact in the article and cited - the fact is found at the bottom of page 152. I think our hook does a good job of saying they might be hares. But our readers are likely going to be drawn in by dragons. Bruxton (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The wordings appear to rest on the assumption that dragons are real.

Lede: 'The name comes from a supposed resemblance to a dragon, but Catherine Johns suggests that if any real animal was intended to be represented, the hare may be the most likely candidate.'

DYK hook: 'if the double-headed Romano-British dragonesque brooch type (example pictured) represents any real animal, it may be hares rather than dragons'.

Both sentences, and especially the second one, are formulated in a way that presupposes that dragons are real animals. The first sentence implies that there is a contradiction between the traditional identification as a dragon and Johns' opinion that if it's a real animal, it's a hare. But there is no logical contradiction between the two statements - it's perfectly possible to believe that (1) if it's not a real animal, it's a dragon; (2) if it is a real animal, it's a hare. Compare: 'Richard is supposed to have grown up in an African country, but Mary suggests that if he grew up in a European country, it was most likely France.' It's a bit puzzling why Mary even entertains the possibility that he was born in a European country, given that the general assumption is that he was born in an African one. The second sentence implies that a real animal could in theory be either a hare or a dragon, but that it just happens to be a hare in this specific instance. Compare the problem with the sentence: 'If George has been to any European country, it is most likely France rather than Malaysia.' 62.73.69.121 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really agree. The DYK ran yesterday, so that's gone & I think the article text is fine. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)