Jump to content

Talk:Kristoffer Domeij

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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 Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Kristoffer Domeij
Kristoffer Domeij
  • ... that Kristoffer Domeij (pictured) did 14 tours of duty over ten years as a Special Operations Ranger in Afghanistan and Iraq? Source: here hereand there
    • ALT1:... that Kristoffer Domeij set a record when he died after 14 tours of duty over ten years as a Special Operations Ranger? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

5x expanded by 7&6=thirteen (talk), Illegitimate Barrister (talk), and Durindaljb (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hook is verified and interesting, you could also consider an alt that emphasizes that he was the soldier with the most deployments to be killed in duty. Article is suitably referenced free of copyvio. QPQ has been done. What makes leadtheway.org a reliable source?
    However, I think there are far too many quotes for it to actually be considered at 5x expansion. For instance, "Assuming an average deployment length of seven months—Army deployments are seldom shorter than that, and usually much longer—he probably spent at least 8 of his 29 years overseas, waging America’s wars." should probably be rephrased or attributed. The paragraph beginning The relevant factors are not just length and frequency of deployments for special operators. is essentially all a quote from Mother Jones-- it isn't original text. A quote like "conducts an incredible 400 - 500 missions during a combat deployment." is unnecessary and could be rephrased into the wiki-voice -- and 'incredible' removed. "reserved for Air Force airmen who serve with ground combat units and call in airstrikes from fighters or bombers flying overhead." could again be rephrased. In the two paragraphs beginning Col. Mark W. Odom, commander of the 75th Ranger Regiment, you have extensive testimonials from non-notable people, I think these should be trimmed. Including extensive testimonials past a certain point doesn't really contribute to an articles encyclopedic-ness and imo makes it increasingly non-neutral.
    Any one of these quotes/sections could easily be included, but the summation of all of them means that at the moment you have very little original content included in the expansion so it's very hard to consider it a true 5x expansion of original content. If you are looking for a specific DYK guideline here, the Mother Jones quote beginning "as members of the SPECOPS community" should be in a blockquote template per WP:BLOCKQUOTE (Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters... as a block quotation) and as such can't count towards a 5x expansion.
    Otherwise, we're waiting on the AfD to be closed. Let me know what you think about the quotation issue-- I'm not sure I'm right on this one. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eddie891 AFD closed. As to your observation that quotes don't count toward 5X expansion, I think you are wrong. In any event, the list of medals should not, I submit, not be counted one way or the other. Be careful out there and Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, AFD is no longer an issue. I'll ask for a second opinion on the 5x expansion at WT:DYK, and unresolved is what makes leadtheway.org a reliable source? Thanks for your work, particularly on this article, and stay safe-- Eddie891 Talk Work 13:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 20 January there were 1142B (194 words). Removing the multi-word quotes in the current version, I find 740 wordsish (less than 4500 characters). If the lead is expanded, there is probably enough to push the article above 5x even without quotes. CMD (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead. I've also expanded the rest of the article. Good suggestion. Are we there yet? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I now see 6921 B (1170 words) readable prose size, not counting the block quote, easily enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using the DYK tool, if on January 21 there were 1142 characters (194 words), and today there are 6921 B (1170 words) , that is a 5x expansion. --evrik (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is more than a 5× expansion now. However, quotes that are long enough to be treated as blockquotes, whether they are separated out or not, do not count toward expansion (and will not be counted by DYKcheck as prose if blockquoted), so the article hadn't qualified prior to the additional expansion on February 6. Also, articles that mostly consist of quotes can be deemed insufficient: as noted above, the key at DYK is original content. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query So everyone now agrees it is now long enough. Here was the article before the improvements. Does this amount to substantial compliance with the rules or not? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is now long enough, but it still does not meet the DYK criteria, in my opinion. Specifically 4(a), "Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy." I suggest you consider removing the names of his (non notable) children per WP:BLPNAME ("The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons"). More importantly, I cannot approve an article with phrasing such as

His many and constant deployments shows an extraordinary level of personal sacrifice. It is emblematic of the all volunteer army, and the elimination of the draft, which have been part of a persistent state of war where the burden is not borne by society as a whole — but instead rests squarely on the 1% and their families. It is of course true that he was a voluntary soldier who served in an elite special operations community – “Rangers lead the way” is their motto. However, his willingness to selflessly serve his country may be transcended by the question "whether this country is abusing its fit young people’s sense of commitment."

I cannot see how this could be considered neutral. Further, you still have not addressed how leadtheway.org and soldiersystems.net are reliable sources. If you disagree, I can flag this for a re-review by someone else. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can delete the two sources you don't like. Debating the reliability of two minor sources out of many is not worth the time. They are redundant amidst the more than 17 in line cited sources. The Soldier systems article is about the film that was made to honor him. And it doesn't mention the obelisk that the army installed to honor him. So why is that unreliable?
The paragraph you dislike is cited and balanced. WP:Reliability not WP:Truth. Feel free to rewrite it, if you have a better version.
That you think the family and child are "loosely involved" misunderstands their place in this story. The army thought differently. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 06:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
since you aren’t willing to address the issues I’ve flagged, I cannot tick this. Just because most of the sources are reliable doesn’t mean unreliable ones can be excused. Just because something is verifiable doesn’t mean it’s neutral. It’s not me liking or disliking something, it’s our policies and guidelines. I suggest you re-read over them if you can’t understand what I’m saying. Specifically, WP:RS, WP:BLPNAME, and WP:NPOV. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns are acknowledged. I have tried to address all of your concerns. New sources and new formatting and placement. "SGT. 1ST CLASS KRISTOFFER BRYAN DOMEIJ: Killed in action on October 22, 2011 2011 Operation Enduring Freedom" (PDF). 75th Ranger Battalion U.S. Army Special Operations Command. Retrieved February 10, 2021.
Parenthetically, leadtheway.org is a dead link, and is so marked. I did not eliminate it because of WP:Linkrot. It is way down the way in terms of sourcing in this article, which has ca. 20 sources.
If that does not work for you, we need another reviewer. Lead, follow or get out of the way. Thanks for your suggestions. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a free image now and, as it seems quite a good photo of the subject in his prime, we should consider using it. I have updated the nomination accordingly, including adding myself to the list of contributors, ok?Andrew🐉(talk) 18:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eddie891 Article has been restructured and rewritten. New reviewer needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! My issues are resolved, but I feel too involved at this point to take an unbiased look. Ready for re-review.Eddie891 Talk Work 18:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at this afresh, this article is a fivefold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The image is appropriately licensed, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is now sufficiently neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged "promotional" deletion

[edit]

Besides WP:I don't like it, was there a rationale for gutting the article here? This was all properly and reliably sourced. While I WP:AGF, this from a "Journeyman editor" and "reformed vandal" looks a lot like WP:Vandalism to me. I would note that the deletion of all this material was done by the same person who moved to delete the article, which failed. WP: Dead horse. Doing by indirection that which he could not achieve by direction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this a wildly un-AGF comment, but I'm kind of concerned that an editor with 13 years of experience would be saying this. A large amount of what you added to the article was completely irrelevant to the subject and honestly was included to make the reader sympathize with him ("The 14 deployments he had were extraordinary, both in quantity and quality." "That he was cut down with his experience inflicted a loss and a psychological trauma on his unit members." "In Domeij's case, that translates to a man whom his unit commander described as "irreplaceable" – on the battlefield and in life," etc etc.) Need I go on? Lettlerhello • contribs 04:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant, but apparently not to you. YMMV.
That is what the multiple WP:RS sources said. I did not make it up. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth.
More importantly, that is what his fellow soldiers and the army had to say. Obelisk anyone?
If you remove all the content, and reduce this to 'soldier dies in war' then the article is useless and not notable for anything. And should be deleted, which is what you tried to do before. But that seems to be your modus operandi. I don't need to speculate on your motives; the conduct speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitur 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what I wrote as my edit summary? I did not remove content for no reason; you were making parts of the artice puffery. Your comment on how me removing this puffery was my "modus operandi" for vandalizing the article shows how unaccepting you are of anyone that criticizes you. You don't own this article now that you expanded it. Your opinion is "once a vandal, always a vandal," which is simply wrong and a one-faced way of looking at things. I won't bother you anymore, as you seem to hate me for making a good-faith edit, but I hope I won't have to encounter anyone with your level of distrust and stubborness again on this site. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're right. It works for everyone, doesn't it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

[edit]

Text copied from Memorial Ceremony to Kristoffer Domeij. See former picture's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

[edit]

This article reads a bit oddly. It doesn't provide a coherent summary of Domeij's military career, is repetitive at times, and contains opinionated language. It also seems to rely too much on quotes, which I think have contributed to the problems with opinionated language. It also beats around the bush a bit on the debate over whether 14 deployments was too many, with this not being presented in a coherent way. I've also removed some WP:PEACOCK language and some material which was vague and/or incorrect, but more could be done here. The DYK hook is also obviously factually incorrect: he set a record for the number of deployments when he commenced deployment number 13 (given the previous record was 12), not when he was killed during deployment 14. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was about to write something similar. It reads like an op ed not a biography in an encyclopedia. The article lacks a chronology ie early life, career (sic military), death. In fact his passing is phrased in a one line sentence = he died with others in a roadside bomb. A rather dismissive finale to his dedication and service. Yep this is just another rubbish article written in a lazy cut and paste way. TBH wikipeda editors just stop writing and post links under article headers to create a body of knowledge, that way people can read what they choose about the topic. 81.141.32.36 (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Special:Contributions/81.141.32.36 If you can make this article better, please do. Remember to find and use WP:RS and cite them. Just posting links in articles is not what we do. Criticism is easy; making articles takes work. In fact, this is a well sourced article, and you could actually look at what is there, and go directly to the sources; and please improve the article.. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source states that "With his 14 deployments, Domeij becomes the Ranger with the most deployments to date killed in action." So the record was set when he died, not before, and the hook was correct. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

[edit]

Your DYK hook about Special Operations Ranger Kristoffer Domeij drew 36,697 page views (3,058 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the most viewed hook for the month of March and ranks as the second most viewed hook (so far) of 2021, as shown at Top hooks of 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62 Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

[edit]

Please provide a pronunciation for the late sergeant's name. Doh-medge perhaps? Thank you. 99.228.43.228 (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kristoffer_Domeij&oldid=1207003884"