Template:Did you know nominations/1946 British Embassy bombing

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: rejected by Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

1946 British Embassy bombing

(

)

... that the bombing of the British Embassy in Rome was the first ~~Jewish terrorist attack~~ operation by the Irgun against British personnel in Europe?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Buddhist devotion

Created by TheGracefulSlick (talk). Self-nominated at 18:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

Hook unsourced, serious POV problems with the article, and the hook, per WP:TERRORIST. NPOV is not the view of the British colonial office.Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz so the person who placed the tag in the first place is reviewing the article? Shocking. Totally unbiased assement. Did you check the article for the inline source, as required? I revised the hook as well to remove "terrorist attack".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I merely commented here as well - did not pass/reject - leaving that to someone else as I intend to heavily edit the article tomorrow. The revised hook is ok npov now (the article still not), though I would add the year. Citations in the article could be improved - mainly in the lede which is overly long and not a summary of the body. You do not cite a source for first - here for the hook, or in the article (where it appears only in the lede, without a source).Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

And when will you explain the POV tag, Icewhiz? Consider the fact that tag-bombing is disruptive. As you plan to heavily edit the article, should I anticipate this terror attack suddenly becoming a revolutionary act of courage and defiance, despite sources saying otherwise. I can change the article to fit accordingly if that is the case. Also, remember the bombing is the main point of discussion; I'll readily point out issues with WP:SYNTH when you edit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I explained the tag in my edit summary, however I shall cross post this to the TP.

Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Drive-by POV tagging of any article on Israel's conflict with Palestinians is normal, and mostly unmotivated. Serious concerns, if they exist, should be first raised on the talk page, with a series of bulleted notes saying where the perceived problem lies. This was not done, and thus editors were unable to address the ostensible issues the tag alludes to. In any case, the article has since been comprehensively revised according to the best available Italian scholarship, with a focus on ascertained facts, or perceived facts balanced for the different approaches used by scholarship. There is no point in asserting that the use of 'terrorist' as a descriptor is POV: the militant organisations concerned were branded by Israel terrorist, the appropriate Jewish agencies of the day recognized them as such, and numerous high quality sources have no problem in using that descriptor, because it objectively states what the Irgun was doing.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani would it be alright if I co-credited you with this DYK? Your expansion more than sufficiently addressed the POV tag and I appreciate the work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is very gracious of you, but really all I've done is to tweak a solid piece of work that was already there before I noticed. An acknowledgement would strike me as a kind of hijacking of credit the page creator should get recognition for.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

New article, certainly long enough and appears to be impeccably written and sourced. Any edit warring appears to have died down, suggesting it is acceptably neutral. I'd just suggest a little more context would be helpful in the (potentially very intriguing ) hook, for example:

ALT1: ... that the 1946 bombing of the British Embassy in Rome was the first operation by the Revisionist Zionist group Irgun against British personnel in Europe? Sionk (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sionk that looks like a much improved hook. I would accept that version.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine, in that case let's go for ALT1. Ready to move to the next stage. Sionk (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: This is ineligible for promotion until the tagged issues have been resolved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment I have started RFC to resolve the issue of sources. Shrike (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion on the article Talk page, the article has been re-written in parts and better sources found where appropriate to shore-up any disputed facts. The clean-up tags were removed over two weeks ago. I'd hope there would be no further need to address very minor issues using 'clean-up' templates and this DYK can proceed to the next stage. Sionk (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bagoon source still in the article and the RFC was still not concluded.Lets wait for RFC to conclude so we can decide if the Bagoon should stay or notShrike (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The input on the RFC seems to have ceased many days ago and consensus seems to be that the source can remain if used with care. It's a very minor issue in a very lengthy generally well written and informative article. Sionk (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not the consensus I see there - which is either exclude of no consensus (which would lead to exclude). We could perhaps ask for a close for this RfC. There are also some formatting issues in the article in newly added efns.Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The RFC should be closed by uninvolved editor.I have no problem that it will happen now. Shrike (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue can be resolved by normal editing. Articles are things that evolve and hopefully improve. It shouldn't be an impediment to the DYK. Sionk

(talk) 21:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This clearly disputed and should be sorted before promotion.Per WP:DEADLINE we can wait. Shrike (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There certainly is a point where DYK nominations grow stale. The last post was dated over a month ago, and the nomination is presently 2 months and a week old. Marking for closure as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)