Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Alexander Prokhorenko

Add links
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 PFHLai (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Alexander Prokhorenko

[edit]
(
)

Created by Muvindu Perera (talk) and Mhhossein (talk). Nominated by Mhhossein (talk) at 02:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC).

  • The "Russian Rambo" part is not currently in the article. It was only being used by some media sources in America, which is not enough to justify the "also known as" wording given the person was not American. I personally feel it is a rather insulting term to use for an individual, and also culturally insensitive. I think the incident is worthy of a DYK, but with that wording omitted and with maybe additional wording explaining why he ordered the airstrike. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield: Except CNN, I saw that sources such as Russia Today and Dailymail were using this term. --Mhhossein (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The RT source (at least the one I saw) mentions that some Western online media had been referring to him using that term - but that does not amount to a genuine "also known". I personally also feel it is a completely inappropriate term to be using. Maybe some Georgians or Ukrainians might have wet dreams about being Rambo, but it is not I think a name anyone in Russia would want to associate with. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you know that I have taken a personal interest in this article. The Rambo reference trips off the tongue nicely, in English, but to use this in reference to a Russian national is not a good thing. I have refreshed my memory about the Rambo movies here you will see that in Rambo II and Rambo III, the "Soviets" were the "bad guys" (really bad). Also, looking here quote: "The term "Rambo" is used commonly to describe a person who is reckless, disregards orders, uses violence to solve problems, enters dangerous situations alone, and is exceptionally tough and aggressive."[4]. Frankly, I'm rather appalled that a Western news agency would use this particular American cultural reference, given the history of the 1980s era movies. I don't think that " we Wikipedians" want to use the term, and have readers realize, (perhaps later), that it is totally inappropriate. I know you want to do the right thing, so I thought I would explain why Tiptoethrutheminefield and I are opposed to this. Best, and thanks. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield and Tribe of Tiger: Thank you both for providing a thorough explanation regarding the disputed issue. I'm not objecting your argument. However, although we know that the term is not really an honor for Russians, we unfortunately have to comply with sources when writing articles. I'm satisfied with Tiptoethrutheminefield's clear argument that "a genuine also known" has to be provided by various reliable sources so that we can have it used and this is not true here. Anyway, can I ask you modify the hook based on this consensus? --Mhhossein (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ...Alexander Prokhorenko, a 25-year-old Russian special forces officer, ordered an airstrike on himself when he was surrounded by ISIS on an intelligence mission during the recapture of Palmyra? [Note: was edited directly on original hook by Tribe of Tiger; placing here for context, and because ALT hooks are there in part so existing hooks aren't changed in midstream, making it hard to follow the discussion. —BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)]

Full review needed considering the concerns raised above. --Mhhossein (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Hook struck. As the term "Russian Rambo" does not appear in the article text, it cannot be used in the hook per DYK rules. There will likely be WP:BLP issues with adding it to the article or using it in the hook due to the negative (and thus non-neutral) connotations noted above. I suggest that a hook without that phrase be proposed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: I'm a bit confused by your comment because the disputed term was already struck and it was omitted from the article some days ago. The hook was without that term. Anyway thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mhhossein, I apologize: I didn't see the strikeout in the middle of the hook on my screen (it was there; I just didn't see it), and the talk about Rambo above made me think it was still there because the original hook seemed to be active. Existing hooks should not be changed in any significant way, because it confuses the discussion history; instead, a new ALT hook should be created and the old one struck. I have therefore restored (and struck) the original hook, and inserted the revised (and preferred) hook at the appropriate point above as an ALT1. I'll reiterate your call for new reviewer below, so it doesn't seem to be answered already, and I apologize again for the confusion. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset: No need for apology. I can understand what you say. Thanks for letting me know that we had to provide a new hook and thanks for your edits. --Mhhossein (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Date, length and QPQ fine. The citation for the hook fact is in the cited source from The Independent and I've linked directly to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the hook to avoid a redirect. No copyvio issues that I can find. GTG with ALT1. Basement12 (T.C) 16:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Returned for copyvio. Half the hook is verbatim from the source. Please find a new hook. Then new reviewer needed. — Maile (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Striking ALT3 as too long at 204 characters. (It was also not as interesting a hook.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Adding: I think "encircled" or the like is important; ALT2 doesn't make clear that this was not a mistake but a deliberate choice on Prokhorenko's part. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: Was it really not interesting? But it was a reworded form of the former passed hook. However, I think we should mention that he was surrounded. Mhhossein (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I did the final edits on the ALT1 hook. The phrases "ordered an airstrike" and "surrounded by " are common, conflict-related descriptive English expressions. Please see "What is not plagiarism", which provides exceptions for the"use of common expressions and idioms, including those that are common in sub-cultures such as academia" (military subculture) and "phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information". A hook is basically a headline, in which one has to get the reader's attention in as few words as possible. The attention grabber in the ALT1 hook is the (sadly) familiar phrase "called an airstrike" followed by the unexpected: "on himself." I think that ALT1 is the most effective hook and that it does not violate copyright. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a copyvio here either. Maile66, could you please be more specific about what you think constitutes the copyvio? Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I thought I was specific by linking the source. It was the wording of the hook ALT1 itself:
hook wording ordered an airstrike on himself when he was surrounded by ISIS
source wording ordered an air strike on himself after becoming surrounded by Isis militants
Sorry if that was unclear Gatoclass, but it really doesn't matter now since new hooks have been written. All that is needed is for a new hook to be reviewed and green ticked. Hope this answers your concern. — Maile (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

NEW PROPOSAL: User:Mhhossein, User:BlueMoonset, User:Basement12, as you can see above, I have made some comments regarding the hook. Well, anyway,, I have rewritten it to address the copyright concerns.

I prefer ALT4, because "the battle to liberate Palmyra" describes the objectives of the military action better than "recapture"(in my opinion). I actually prefer ALT4 to ALT1 Anyway, let me know what you think. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)(Four, 4, go for 4!)

One more. I like this one, because Spetsnaz is eye-catching.So, ALT4, then ALT6, and last, ALT5 would be my order of preference. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Thank you. To me, all of them seem suitable but if I'm to choose one, I'll select ALT4. Mhhossein (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Good! I'm glad you liked them! I hope things go well with no problems the rest of the way to DYK. Thanks for adding the "blue links", I didn't think of that. Since you have only 200 characters for the hook, I think ALT4 is a good choice, because it conveys the most information along with a good "hook". Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to check the new ALT hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The copyvio concerns have been addressed, so I hope this would be the final review. Article was created within a week before nomination, is long enough, QPQ done, hooks are supported by refs. 1 and 3 and have inline citations. I find ALT4 most interesting. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Alexander_Prokhorenko&oldid=963210115"