- 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 reviewer, closed by Vaticidalprophet talk 19:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Yaroslav Hunka
- ... that Waffen-SS veteran Yaroslav Hunka compared men in his division to Jews? Source: https://forward.com/fast-forward/561927/zelenskyy-joins-canadian-parliaments-ovation-to-98-year-old-veteran-who-fought-with-nazis/
Created by CJ-Moki (talk). Self-nominated at 01:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Yaroslav Hunka; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The article is detailed and referenced properly with no plagiarism issues. However, someone shared a link to the subject's blogpost (source) stating that "Hunka did not compare the men in his division to modern Jews. It was a biblical reference to the Israelites being cast away and separated unable to return to their homeland." I would like you to clarify this issue and if possible update the DYK on the basis of this info considering the ongoing controversy of the subject. Toadboy123 (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Toadboy123: Thank you for the reply. Would this work as an alternative:
- ALT1: ... that Waffen-SS veteran Yaroslav Hunka compared men in his division to Jews, with allegedly similar histories of being diasporas unable to return home?
- CJ-Moki (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- ALT1
Approved Toadboy123 (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) - The article cited as a secondary source states he compared his people to Jews, however, I believe this is an inaccurate synthesis on behalf of the article writers as Hunka himself used the phrase "tribe of Israel" (according to Google Translate, anyways) which can be interpreted to mean a different set of people than modern day Jews. So, a more accurate DYK nomination would simply be "Israelites" based off the primary source, even if this is slightly contradicted by the Forward article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- @HadesTTW: I believe that deviating from the Forward article in this fashion would constitute WP:OR. CJ-Moki (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- In that case we might just have to remove the factoid altogether if we are not allowed to use a primary source and the article is inaccurate as per Wikipedia:Inaccuracy. I do wish we could just cite the blog directly but Wikipedia policy does discourage that. HadesTTW (he/him • talk)
- @HadesTTW: I believe that deviating from the Forward article in this fashion would constitute WP:OR. CJ-Moki (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- ALT1
- This should be put on hold until the deletion discussion has concluded. cagliost (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - according to the image source (his personal blog), that crop is inaccurate; he's the guy standing in the center, not kneeling. — Knightoftheswords 02:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Broken English. The usage of "diasporas" is wrong, as men in Hunka's division are not a diaspora, and Jews are not a diaspora either. Namely, men in Hunka's divison can be members of a diaspora, such as the Ukrainian diaspora, but they don't constitute a diaspora as a set (diaspora attaches to the whole ethnicity / ethnoreligious group, so they can only be a subset of the relevant diaspora, not a diaspora in and of itself). Jews are a people and Jews in diaspora are the Jewish diaspora, and Jewish diaspora does not comprise all Jews, so "Jews" can't stand for "Jewish diaspora". As worded, it could also make it look as if the men in Hunka's division are "diaporas", but members of a group of individuals can not be "diaporas". (Diasporas are multiple instance of a diaspora, not multiple instances of members of a diaspora.) In terms of language usage, this hook is terrible. @Toadboy123: Hello, how should this be fixed now that you have approved the hook?—Alalch E. 16:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. I tried my best to modify the hook. ALT2: ... that Waffen-SS veteran Yaroslav Hunka drew a comparison between the men in his division and Jews, suggesting that both peoples shared the common history of being dispersed and unable to return to their homelands? Would this be fine? Also pinging @CJ-Moki: - Toadboy123 (talk) 23:01, 03 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Toadboy123: I approve of this alt, it is neutral, interesting, and supported by the Forward source. My suggestions would be that the term "Waffen-SS" should be italicized and linked, and that the word "Jews" should be linked. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Toadboy123: Thanks a lot, that's fine.—Alalch E. 21:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. and CJ-Moki: ALT2 should not run. It seems to make a claim unsupported by the source, which says merely that he
compares the veterans of his unit, who were scattered across the world, to Jews
—nothing about being ... unable to return. And regardless of whether that's supported by a primary source, it seems wrong to put this person's writing comparing Nazis to Jews on the main page. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC) - So I'll suggest a straight hook even if it seems more suited for ITN:
- ALT3 ... that Canadian Speaker of the House Anthony Rota resigned after inviting a former Nazi soldier to the House of Commons? Source: ref65
- Also aligns more duly with the possible move. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Hameltion: That Rota resigned after inviting a former Nazi soldier was already widely reported upon and, in my view, is less likely to attract a reader's interest than the other hooks. I understand the concern that the hook might be offensive, but it doesn't say or insinuate in its own voice that Nazis are similar to Jews (something that, to be clear, would be indefensible to put in wikivoice). I propose this:
- ALT0a ... that Waffen-SS veteran Yaroslav Hunka compared men in his division to Jews? Source: https://forward.com/fast-forward/561927/zelenskyy-joins-canadian-parliaments-ovation-to-98-year-old-veteran-who-fought-with-nazis/
- It is supported by the Jewish-run Forward source, and is interesting in my opinion. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- @CJ-Moki: Suggest avoiding this line of hook altogether. (As a point of procedure, noting that the article currently says
In 2011, he compared the Ukrainian diaspora to the Israelites
, which as discussed above is not true to the RS.) Surely there are further interesting details to highlight. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- @CJ-Moki: Suggest avoiding this line of hook altogether. (As a point of procedure, noting that the article currently says
- @Hameltion: That Rota resigned after inviting a former Nazi soldier was already widely reported upon and, in my view, is less likely to attract a reader's interest than the other hooks. I understand the concern that the hook might be offensive, but it doesn't say or insinuate in its own voice that Nazis are similar to Jews (something that, to be clear, would be indefensible to put in wikivoice). I propose this:
- @Alalch E. and CJ-Moki: ALT2 should not run. It seems to make a claim unsupported by the source, which says merely that he
- @Alalch E. I tried my best to modify the hook. ALT2: ... that Waffen-SS veteran Yaroslav Hunka drew a comparison between the men in his division and Jews, suggesting that both peoples shared the common history of being dispersed and unable to return to their homelands? Would this be fine? Also pinging @CJ-Moki: - Toadboy123 (talk) 23:01, 03 October 2023 (UTC)
new reviewer needed to make sense of the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@CJ-Moki: 
Because this article has become a redirect since its original nomination, as well the various issues with deciding on a hook above, I believe the best course of action is to end the nomination. I'm sorry, and I wish you better luck with other DYK noms in the future. Johnson524 06:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Johnson524: Thank you for your condolence. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Based on the above, I had closed the nomination as rejected. Vaticidalprophet argued that it's still a valid nomination, though. We shall thus leave it open. Schwede66 21:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I said "the rejection that was made wasn't valid", not "it shouldn't have been rejected". I clarified that in the original message and I wish you'd asked before reopening -- I was making that note to inform you and the reviewer next time of the tricky middle ground that is "rejecting based on an article being restructured". Having said that, if you think there's a new hook to be made, feel free to keep it open for that. Vaticidalprophet 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: Umm... is there any way for this nom to be re-closed? There doesn't seem to be much interest in continuing the DYK by those involved since the original article became a redirect. I wouldn't care, but this is one of the older nominations, and I would like to see it finally conclude. Cheers! Johnson524 16:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I said "the rejection that was made wasn't valid", not "it shouldn't have been rejected". I clarified that in the original message and I wish you'd asked before reopening -- I was making that note to inform you and the reviewer next time of the tricky middle ground that is "rejecting based on an article being restructured". Having said that, if you think there's a new hook to be made, feel free to keep it open for that. Vaticidalprophet 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)