- 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 Yoninah (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Sumpul River massacre
edit
... that on May 14, 1980, Salvadoran forces massacred 600 refugees with the assistance of Honduran soldiers?
- Reviewed: My understanding of DYK procedures is that I'm not required to review any hooks because this is my first nomination.
- Comment: The first hook is definitely my preference here, but I'm not sure how belligerent this process is about strict sourcing requirements. Most of that text is pulled from the first sentence of the third-to-last paragraph in the "Aftermath" section; notably, I have replaced the finding there of "at least 300" with the higher estimate of 600. If desired, we can revert back to the former, or compromise with "300-600". The reason for the difference is explained in a footnote in the article. An entirely different hook is also always an option if someone has any ideas.
Moved to mainspace by Compassionate727 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Invalid status "?again" - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again"
- Sure thing. I at one point had a large number of sources on the casualty estimates; I pulled them back out of the page history, adding 2 to "at least 300" and three to 600. I can pull more for both of them if desired; I'm not sure at which point "proving my editorial judgement" becomes "reference bombing". It looks like I went with a note immediately for the part regarding Honduran involvement; I'll pull sources (and I recall there being more than half a dozen of them) out of my browsing history later tonight when I have time.
- I'd like to propose an ALT4 as a modification of ALT2:
...that on May 14, 1980, Salvadoran forces massacred more than 300 civilians with the assistance of Honduran soldiers?
- I suppose civilians is a better word to use than refugees (is someone who tries to flee the country but isn't quite able to a refugee? Definitions are ambiguous.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Catrìona: Good call on the casualty count. Because Google is a pain and didn't save all of my browsing history, I'm having to re-search for the articles I was referencing, and of course they've recalculated search algorithims, so I'm actually finding different sources than I was before. Plus side is, I have found two sources (Christian Science Monitor and a USDoJ report) that reference two sources (Sunday Times and Chicago Tribune) that predate the NYTimes article and use 300 instead of 600. I will need to investigate further and decide how to refactor that note best. I should also recount the number of sources I now have that do say Honduran soldiers shot and see if it merits mention in the text of the article as a minority viewpoint. Most of them seem to predate the UN report, though, so I'm not concerned that's an issue of accuracy but more of completeness, though you can hold the hook until you're satisfied I've dealt with this adequately if you want. Both OR claims from earlier have been dealt with, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Approving ALT4. Catrìona (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: It appears from the article that the extent of the involvement of Honduran soldiers is unclear, so we cannot have a hook that states as a fact that they assisted in the massacre. I suggest you select a hook that doesn't mention them at all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: While the exact nature of the involvement is not fully resolved (eg allegations that the Hondurans shot refugees) all the sources agree that the Honduran soldiers prevented the refugees from escaping the massacre by crossing the river. So I don't think there's an issue with the hook as worded. Catrìona (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- ALT5 ... that on May 14, 1980, Salvadoran forces massacred more than 300 civilians while Honduran soldiers prevented them from escaping across the Sumpul River into Honduras? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, alt five is fine. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Catriona: If you are happy with ALT5, please could you give it a tick. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Unless, of course, we prefer the brevity of ALT4. I assume @Cwmhiraeth: is attempting to clarify the nature of Honduran assistance. We could just say:
- ALT6
... that on May 14, 1980, Salvadoran forces massacred more than 300 civilians while Honduran soldiers prevented them from escaping?
- or
- ALT7 ... that on May 14, 1980, Salvadoran forces massacred more than 300 civilians while Honduran soldiers prevented them from escaping across the border?
- Experienced persons' call, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I am approving ALT5 and ALT7 which seem to be accurate in what is a rather unclear event, and striking the other hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ooh, apparently Catrìona and Catriona are two different people. Pinged the correct one. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
You're not the first person to get them mixed up. Sorry for the delayed response - the page isn't on my watch list. I have no objection to Alt5 or Alt7. Catrìona (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Does this make it my choice? I prefer ALT7: let's stick with information the reader will understand. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 04:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
