- The following discussion 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Oscar S. Heizer
edit
- ... that Oscar S. Heizer (pictured) reported that many Armenian children were put into boats, taken out to sea and thrown overboard during the Armenian Genocide?
- Reviewed: Battle of Kozludzha
Created by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nominated at 07:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC).
Date, size, ref density are fine. I am however concerned about the neutrality of the hook, the Armenian Genocide is controversial and the hook is referenced to an offline early 20th century source. I'd suggest either a less controversial hook, a better ref - or a second opinion for this hook. (Please ping me on talk if there are comments left here for me to read). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Per the author's request on my talk page, I'll withdraw from this review; let another reviewer offer a third opinion. I still think that a strong claim such as children drawing needs better refs for the hook. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Third-party opinion is needed. However, I sincerely believe that the source is well cited. It includes an Armenian source, non-Armenian source and the original report from the United States government. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Date, size, refs seem fine. Most of the references (including the hook) are not available on line, so a fair amount of AGF is required. This is my first DYK review (so I may be in over my head) but it seems the hook is suggesting that the article will answer the question, which I’m not sure it does. Also, many of Heizer’s letters are cited verbatim in this very detailed Master’s Thesis titled “Official United States Documents on the Armenian Genocide: an Annotated Bibliography.” Searching for terms like “children”, “boat”, “drown”, and “overboard” did not produce support for the hook. Without having access to the cited sources it is impossible to say, but I question using this particular hook. There is no shortage of atrocities contained in the article from which another equally sensational (but slightly less polarizing) hook could potentially be drawn. Just my own observation. -- Godot13 (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Godot13, you can have a look with Google books yourself. See:
I don't get what the issue is here? There's nothing wrong with using a hook that is cited and verifiable with other independent and reliable sources. Just because the source you presented here didn't hand pick the exact report or phrase in the article doesn't mean it never existed. I really don't see a debate here. Is the hook too gruesome? Well too bad. We all know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Proudbolsahye (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for including the reference links. These should probably be added to the article itself. I do not think the hook is too gruesome. I think it is misleading. The references you provide refer to Heizer reporting 16 bodies in the water washing ashore. Is that a single instance? Does it occur with frequency? It makes it sound like he reported that he knew of exactly 16 children who were intentionally drowned. To say that children were intentionally drowned as the hook seems fine. But he did not describe how many children were put into boats, taken out to see, and drowned. He reported seeing 16 bodies of children wash up on the shore.--Godot13 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- These sources ARE part of the article as source #11, 12, 13 respectfully. And yes, the bodies of children washed up ashore are of a separate instance and it was something he personally witnessed. He does not claim that those children that have drowned in the previous sentence are the same ones washed up ashore. Heizer does not make that judgement. He doesn't need to. Anyways, I did change the hook to from "described" the drowning to "reported that many" since it is more correct. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I support the hook as amended. I saw that they are part of the article, I was just referring to the google link to see the actual raw source. The article is very well done, nice work.--Godot13 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)