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) 06:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
... that after traveling through India, Tibet, and the Qing Empire for over 20 years Samuel van der Putte (1690–1745) ordered his notes and journals to be burned rather than accept their misuse?
ALT1:... that the Dutch traveler Samuel van der Putte (1690–1745) scandalized his roommates, the Catholic missionaries of Lhasa, but was on good terms with the town's lamas?
ALT2:... that the first European map to actually show Bhutan rather than confuse it with Tibet (pictured) was drawn by the Dutch traveler Samuel van der Putte (1690–1745), who ordered it to be burned?
ALT3:... that Samuel van der Putte—the son of a Dutch admiral—became a lawyer, alderman, and doctor before leaving Europe to hang out with Catholic missionaries and Buddhist lamas in Lhasa?
ALT4:... that Dutch traveler Samuel van der Putte’s map of Bhutan (pictured) was spared the burning of his journals and notes but destroyed by Allied bombing during World War II?
ALT5:... that Samuel van der Putte may have had his journals burnt to keep them out of English hands but his map of Bhutan (pictured) only survives today because it was copied by a Brit before the bombing of Middelburg?
Comment: Kindly don't add any extraneous links: we don't need to promote traffic to Bhutan or Lama; I had nothing to do with either; and the curious can click through from the new article instead of the hook.
W/r/t ALT5, kindly remember that the (pictured) shouldn't count towards the character limit (which it totally hits, but the guy had a long name and the situation was a bit complicated)
Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 16:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC).
Overall: A. Excellent sources, fascinating hooks and a very interesting subject. In the main hook it says he traveled for twenty years, but in the article it says he traveled between 1721 and 1745. B) I couldn't find the Qing border regulations in the sources cited. Am I missing something?
C. For ALT1 and ALT3, the text in the article corresponding to the hook should have an inline citation directly after the end of the sentence with the scandalizing of the roommates. D) Also, the befriending of the lamas can't be found on the page cited.
E. For ALT2, the page number of Gandolfo is incorrect, it is on page 107, not 93.
F. For ALT3, the admiral was actually a vice-admiral according to the source. G) Hang out is a bit colloquial, considering the context.
H. For ALT4, replace was spared by survived and the hook is easier to understand.
I. ALT5 is too packed, though it is exactly 200 characters, it just contains too much content to be a good hook.
This is a great topic for me, since I am Dutch and am fascinated by Buddhism and the East. I know the criticism is a lot to take in, but I recently go a nomination kicked out a few mins before it reached the front page, and I don't want to make that mistake again. Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 21:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Farang Rak Tham: Thank you for your time, kind words, and very careful attention. You only actually needed to check the hook you were most interested in, but sorry about your rough time before.
That said, some of your objections seem mistaken.
A)In the hook, it says he was in India, Tibet, and China 20 years (=at least). In the sources, it says he left Holland in 1721; he wasn't immediately in India. The article already cites him there by 1725. I don't see why this is confusing or why you'd want the hook to read more awkwardly by adding the words "probably slightly over ~" when it's already accurate as given. I suppose you could just add over to the hook if you really need it, but it's not wrong as is and it's already pushing up against 200 characters. B)I can't find anything about Qing border regulations in the hooks cited, so I have no idea why it's relevant to the DYK process. If you actually think it's inaccurate (it won't be), add a {{fact}} tag or bring it up on the talk page.
[Edit: The cites do talk about him being forced to disguise himself; the reason for that obligation was both local xenophobia (which is directly mentioned) and wanting to avoid problems with local authorities (which isn't explicitly mentioned but still accurate: see Pundit (explorer) for the problems the British still ran into a hundred years later with the Qing border guards). Westerners were still notionally limited to Guangzhou at the time and banned from traveling in the interior of the country. I could remove the clearer and accurate explanation for the fact stated by the sources for the duration of the review if needed and only mention their 19th-century complaints about East Asian xenophobia interfering with the wonders of their imperialism, but that doesn't seem especially helpful.] C)Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing in WP:DYK or WP:DYKSG that says this; it's unnecessary; and it's actually againstWP:OVERKILL. There's a cite in the sentences directly following the one involved in the hook, and it covers the content. D)Yes, it can. The phrasing is "became intimate with", which was presumably intended to be less sexual that it sounds today. E)The cite confusing you is confirming the fact that the earlier mention of Bhutan was not about what we now call Bhutan but actually about misplacing and misnaming Tibet. The cite you're looking for is the one immediately preceding it and it's at the bottom of page 108, not page 107 (which states he left a map but not that it was the first accurate one). F)Vice admirals are specific members of the class of ranks known as admirals. (See, e.g., the first paragraph here.) You can specify that the kind of admiral was a "vice admiral" if you think it needs to be distinguished from proper full admirals. (The article already does!) I added dad's job to the hook as yet another high status job in his family that he left behind; getting overly specific—especially to somewhat reduce the rank—gets off topic and is less helpful with the hook's contrast between his expected and chosen life. G)Not sure what you mean. The context is a DYK hook (which generally is informal) and a contrast with his work as a lawyer, doctor, and magistrate (which are fairly formal positions in the usual way of things), which contrast is heightened by informal phrasing. He wasn't disputing theology or conducting politics with the monks and lamas; the monks complain about his agnosticism, not his apostasy; and the source describes him as "intimate" with the lamas if not the monks. "Hanging out" seems pretty apropos to me, but you're welcome to emend the phrasing. H)Your phrasing seems less apt and more awkward. The paper didn't do anything; it was spared by others and that act of salvation is worth highlighting. I)Well, as mentioned, it fits all the rules and, obviously, I liked it. It's cited and ironic and interesting to Brits and those amused by Anglo-Dutch rivalry. On this one, though, you're 100% right that I can't argue with your opinion. Feel free to choose any one of the other options.
In any case, as good as I think the article is, it's not a good article nomination. Here, as long as the article is mostly fine (it really is), you really should choose one hook you like best and let's shepherd it through together. Better yet, since you're Dutch and interested, if you have the time, let me know if I missed anything important from the Dutch article. — LlywelynII 23:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I hope I have correctly understood which response refers to which comment. Next time, feel free to number my comments if I have omitted to do so.
A Adding over would do the trick.
B Please tell me which part of the source cited covers van der Putte's travels in Qing.
C I was referring to Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact in WP:DYKRULES. You would have to copy the citation next to honest man to the sentence preceding it.
D Apologies, you are correct.
E-F Okay, agreed.
G-H Agreeing to disagree.
You have indicated you do not wish to go into much detail, so I'll just select the hook we both agree is good, which is ALT2. I would recommend to adjust the main hook and ALT1 responding to the suggestions given, just in case the closing editor thinks ALT2 is too long. As for myself, I think ALT2 is interesting and not too long.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 13:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Edited.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 13:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
B My VPN is being a pain but I'd imagine the sources at Google Books and the Internet Archive (both blocked in China) say something to the effect of "China", understood at that time as China Proper but also used generically for the Qing Empire inclusive of China Proper, Tartary (Mongolia & Manchuria & Xinjiang), and Tibet. C Huh. I would still WP:IAR that as above, but good to know that it is formally in the rules. — LlywelynII 23:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
A. Excellent sources, fascinating hooks and a very interesting subject. In the main hook it says he traveled for twenty years, but in the article it says he traveled between 1721 and 1745. B) I couldn't find the Qing border regulations in the sources cited. Am I missing something?
Main hook also approved.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)