A fact from When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This
WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
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.
Overall: Great hook, although our usual DYK buzzkills may insist on quotation marks around "worst joke in legal history" later on talk. Earwig's a bit high, but that's most because of quotes and proper nouns.
AryKun (
talk)
11:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Altenmann: I've added some more information analyzing the joke, but, as is often the case when writing about comedy, it seems that all sources have seen it as unnecessary to explain the joke. So, as alluded to in my edit summary, Floyd isn't referencing any one particular joke. He's referencing the trope that women will try to get the last word, and I guess also the trope that, if the woman's beautiful a man will let her. It's so painfully "locker-room humor" that it may well not register as a joke to a lot of people, but that's how he intended it. If there's a way to explain that in the article without resorting to
OR, I'm all for it. But as stands I think this does a pretty good job. --
Tamzin[
cetacean needed (
they|xe)
23:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All's good in the Analysis section (I'm beginning to see a trend.)
Legacy is good. Rare you get an entire article with no MoS violations or muddy prose (or even little nitpicks I can suggest for that matter)
Criterion 2: Verifiable
Let me take a source sample here.
2a (NCC 2023): Yeah, this gives a good and reliable summary of the case.
4 (Hanauer 1989): Checks out!
7 (Morrison 1995, p. 61 n. 41) I love citing footnotes. Yep, checks out very well.
14 (Christopher 2019, pp. 318–319) Good call giving the quotes in the cite, gives nice context; checks out as well.
17 (DiCioccio & Little 2020, pp 20-21) You're going to have to teach me how to do the thing where you cite multiple sources with one citation sometime. Anyhow yes, this checks out. (Also, holy heck you oughta include that "spoiled icing on the collapsed cake" quote, that's beautiful!)
30 (Goldman 2003, p. 9) Yep, that quote is in there.
33 (Sommerlad 2018) They do indeed repeat that claim.
34 (Runkle 2017) As do they.
Yeah, this checks out a-ok.
Criterion 3: Broad
This definitely hits broadness. The only point I'd raise is the Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc line feels slightly off-topic, but that's ultimately my personal taste and it still hits 3b criteria including it.
Criterion 4: Neutral
Don't see any POV issues here.
Criterion 5: Stable
Obviously.
Criterion 6: Illustrated
That picture of Weddington is public domain of course. It's a shame there isn't a picture of Floyd. I would suggest that a picture of the whole SCOTUS at the time, but that'd require a picture after Black and Harlan died but before Rehnquist and Powell took office. If such a picture exists, it'd be good to add, but totally understandable if not.
General thoughts
This hits the GA criteria without you even having to change anything, congrats. Feel free to respond to my inane suggestions at your leisure.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
05:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Articleworthiness?
I feel unsure as to whether this is worthy of being an article. Parts of this article feel like a
COATRACK for Roe v. Wade (or at least its oral argument section), given that it spends a lot of time talking about the case and its participants, not the joke. In addition, the content, if merged, does not seem like it'd be so long that it'd overwhelm the Roe article (or at least not any more than it already is). I'm worried that this is something like
Lewis (baseball) or
Wisp (Sonic), in that the sources are not mainly about the subject and in many cases, are about the subject tangentially (see also
User:Red Phoenix/Due weight as a measure of appropriate coverage). I appreciate the work put into this, though, and I do not intend to start an
AfD for this article (a merge proposal is more palatable to me, but I don't think I'll do that either). -BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK)01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Before writing this I thought about whether it would pass
WP:NOPAGE, and I concluded that it does, because there's a fair amount of detail that would in fact overwhelm the Roe article. That article allocates only a paragraph to the first oral argument, and could make room for at most one paragraph more, in an article that needs to cover a lot of ground. This article, on the other hand, does allocate two paragraphs to the before and after of Roe, but otherwise breaks new ground that wouldn't fit in. The details of the courtroom setting and Floyd's subsequent stumbles might or might not fit. Weddington and Scalia & Garner's analyses of Floyd's motives; Delfs and Colker's feminist critiques; and DiCioccio & Little, Gavenko, and Rappaport's philosophical analyses of why the joke was so remarkably bad, on the other hand, all definitely wouldn't. And those last three, especially, bear emphasis alongside Scalia & Garner as scholarly works thave have treated Floyd's joke as a notable case study. Nor would the Roe article be able to fit discussion of the enduring notoriety of "When a man..." and its usage in popular culture.To me, the question of "how much well-sourced content would have to get cut in a merge?" is the best measure of an article's suitability to stand alone. That's the logic I applied at a previous brief-mention-to-article split,
End Poem, which was kept in a merge request, so I've used that as my rubric ever since. At times it's led me to not make articles that I thought would have been interesting but would have failed it. Here, though, it led me to create one. --
Tamzin[
cetacean needed (
they|xe)
04:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I do see where you're coming from, though looking at End Poem, I do see the sources and the article actually being about the End Poem, without having to use multiple paragraphs to explain Minecraft or its final fight. A good number of the sources seem to mention the joke in the broader context of humor in oral arguments, which is perhaps a reasonable subject for an article. As its own thing, though, this is really light on sources with truly significant coverage. But what do I know? (I found another case study at
Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 4#Proposed merge with Amy Rose.) -BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK)23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I've been thinking of doing
Humor at the United States Supreme Court (I think
theleekycauldron had expressed interest too), and whether this would pass NOPAGE with respect to that is something we wouldn't know till it's written. For now, though, this has multiple high-quality academic sources that spent one or more paragraphs on it, in addition to significant pop-culture coverage, and so I think it stands well enough. --
Tamzin[
cetacean needed (
they|xe)
23:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply