Template:Did you know nominations/Ernest Yarrow

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 Rcsprinter (talk) @ 12:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ernest Yarrow

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that missionary Ernest Yarrow (pictured) spoke about an "organized, systematic attempt to wipe out the Armenians"?

• Reviewed: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Michael_Kum

Created by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nominated at 09:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC).

Issues resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just noting that I'm in the process of reviewing this. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC) The source for the hook says it's from the New York Times, but it links to a personal website and it's not clear that it's a copy of an NYT article. I see a 20,000-word report was published in October 1915 by the Committee on Armenian Atrocities, which is referred to in this NYT article, but I can't see what the relationship is between that report and the text on that website. Can you cite a secondary source (such as a journalist or historian), or a primary source such as the report the NYT refers to, that indicates Yarrow talked of an "organized, systematic attempt to wipe out the Armenians"? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). There's an offline source here by historian and researcher Dikran Kloian. It's on two seperate pages, xiv and 76. Try searching "systematic attempt" and it should come up. I'll add the source to the article now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC) (ec) I see a source here, which may be reproducing that report. It's only snippet view but it would be good enough as a source for this. You can then link to the personal-website article as a courtesy link, though you would need to explain in the footnote what it was exactly. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Haha! We pointed to the same source. I added it for additional verification. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC) That's looks better. Can the NYT article not be linked to directly, rather than linking to a personal website? Also, it's presumably Armenian appeal, not American appeal. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Some copy-editing is needed: Would be better to start the article with his full name, rather than an initial, then there's no need to repeat it in the first section. The first section also doesn't need to repeat his date of birth. I wouldn't call him Ernest, then Yarrow in the next sentence: Yarrow throughout is fine, if he's the only Yarrow in the text. "After graduating from there in 1897, continued his education ..." is missing a "he," and the next sentence can say "he" too, rather than repeating his name. "He then joined the local First Congregational Church then took theological courses ...": remove a then, and "his roommates sister" needs an apostrophe. Boy's school should be "boys' school" (unless it's a name). "After serving for several years, Ernest Yarrow returned ...": no need to repeat his first name. Do you know the name of the Van college? "to take part of in": needs to be fixed. The rest of the article could use some copy editing to smooth out issues like that, and to make it easier to read. The paragraph beginning "During the initial stage of the event ..." is quite hard to follow. It's not clear who is being quoted (and from which document) and why. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Question about the paragraph beginning: "During the initial stage of the event ...," I found the Ussher book on archive.org. The article says: "During the conversation with Cevdet Bey, Ussher and Yarrow witnessed the colonel of Cevdet Beys regiment ... receive orders to massacre the Armenian population ...," citing Ussher, pp. 237–238. Looking at those pages, I can't see where it says Yarrow was in the room at the time. Have I just missed it, or does that need another source? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC) It says that they visited Cevdet Bey together in the preceding paragraphs of the source. Though it may not mention he was in the room, he certainly met him there. My reason for saying he was in the room is based off of good faith since he doesn't say anywhere that we departed from negotations or that he wasn't present. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC) The problem is that that is a very specific claim: "Yarrow witnessed ..." But the source (Ussher's book) says: "I went to the Vali to see if there was any way ..." (p. 237), then discusses what he heard there. He doesn't say Yarrow was with him. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Glad you caught this. From this source [1] (pg. 203), Yarrow and Ussher visited Cevdet on a separate occasion. Nevertheless, Usshers meetings with Cevdet Bey is relevant to Yarrow as it is relevant to the entire article. I'll just remove Yarrows involvement with the meeting. I'll perhaps add some info about the seond meeting where he actually went with Ussher to see Cevdet Bey a second time. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC) That looks better. Again, better to remove one instance of "then" from "He then joined the local First Congregational Church then took theological courses at the Hartford Seminary," or give the years. "Boy's school" should be "boys' school". "Ernest A. Yarrow along with his wife contracted typhus which they both eventually healed from". Better: Yarrow and his wife contracted typhus but both recovered. No need to keep repeating his full name. I'm not sure what this sentence means "In 1924, Ernest Yarrow has also been known for consulting the United States State Department in an attempt to restore Armenian territory that has been lost to Turkey." Better to say what he did exactly. Also, the hook is now well-sourced, but you say elsewhere in the article that he said this in the New York Times. Can you cite the NYT directly? The archives are here. The article shouldn't say that he said this in the NYT unless we can find it in the NYT. There's no need to pay for the article, but we should be able to find the citation (when it was published and the headline). SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC) FIXED. I simplified and clarified the sentence that may have caused confusion. In regards to the NYTimes, unfortunately, I can't find the article in the online archives. Quite strange. Nevertheless, the article is mentioned in other sources ([2], [3], and etc.) In fact, I believe its original publication wasn't the New York Times, but The Survey. I just noticed, both articles are not duplicates with one another. Therefore, I'm going to remove the "In an issue of the New York Times" part. I hope that clarifies things. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC) These are the only two NYT articles I can find for that date that mention Armenia. Will look at the article again with your fixes. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Very strange. As you can see through a snippet view here, the article is scanned and displayed. Most articles in the book are verifiable with the NYTimes archives. Regardless of this though, his statement has been republished by The Survey so I think we are good with sourcing for the hook. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC) That snippet view doesn't say the article was published in the New York Times (that I can see). The citation still says the quote is from the New York Times. That personal website should be removed as a source. Also, you source the sentence "In 1924, Yarrow consulted the United States State Department in order to restore Armenian territory that was lost to Turkey" to a New York Times article from 1915. I'm going to put the nomination hold because of the sourcing issues. The best thing is for you to go through each sourced claim and make sure that the source supports what the text says, and that it's a reliable source, per WP:SOURCES. By all means give me a shout when you've done that and I can take another look. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)..I greatly apologize for not being more attentive to the matter. The article was never published in the New York Times. It was only published in The Survey ([4] see: "AMERICAN APPEAL TO AMERICA FOR HELP" [should be "Armenian Appeal"] and these are all the newspaper articles in Kloian's book). I don't know where I got New York Times from but it must have been because almost all of the articles found in Kloian's book are from the New York Times. I am now removing the excessive and baseless sources that say it was from NYTimes. Once again, I truly do apologize for the mess. As for the other claim, looks like the source has been switched with another one. I'll let you know when I find the corresponding source. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Okay, thanks, and there's no rush. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), the problems from the sources stemmed from the fact that two different sources had the same ref name! I fixed the issue here. The sources are now in line with the content of the article. I also expanded the section that talks about the meetings of the American mission with Cevdet Bey. I've added a paragraph describing Yarrow and Ussher visiting Cevdet Bey for a separate occasion. Hope this sorts out the issues you described. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Hi Proudbolsahye, I'm afraid the problem is still there. The source for the hook – that Yarrow spoke about an "organized, systematic attempt to wipe out the Armenians" – is in the current footnote 2: "Armenian Appeal To America For Help" (Reproduction of original newspaper article). New York Times. 16 October 1915. That is a personal blog. [5] It reproduces an article that it says appeared in the New York Times. We couldn't find the article in the New York Times archives, and you wrote above that it had never been published in the New York Times. So the hook needs a different source, either the original NYT citation with a link to the archive (assuming the article was ever published by them), or another source entirely. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Another source seems to be The Survey, Volume 35, 1916, p. 57, based on this snippet view. But I don't know what that is, or whether it would be the original source. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), sorry if I hadn't removed the source before. It is now removed. As mentioned by me above, the source has never been published in the New York Times, it has been published in The Survey. The original source (#9) is actually provided in the article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for removing that, but now your hook is unsourced in the lead. :) Also, we only have the year of publication, so not October, but 1916. What kind of publication is The Survey? I briefly looked it up but couldn't find anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC) I found an academic source (snippet view) referring to that original headline in The Survey so that looks okay. You just need to copy it into the lead so that the hook is sourced on first reference. I'll read the rest of your changes soon. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), done. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this looks good to go. (Typo: "Yarrows had also described ..."). Date created good, length of article and hook good. Hook appropriately sourced. Rest of the article seems appropriately sourced; with some sources I'm happy to assume good faith. Images seem fine, except that there are a lot of him, so I'd double check that they're all PD or released, and perhaps consider removing the fair-use one of him at the end as unnecessary. Anyway, thanks for creating the article, Proudbolsahye. It's an interesting read. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have pulled this one from the queue because, like the Clarence Ussher article I recently pulled, I think it could use a few lines of historical context, which I will endeavour to add myself as soon as possible. Given that both noms cover essentially the same events, I expect to be able to deal with them simultaneously. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Redundant discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What's happening here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC) See my response at Template:Did you know nominations/Clarence Ussher Gatoclass (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Ussher is done and promoted; any idea how soon this can be completed? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC) BlueMoonset (talk · contribs) I reminded Gatoclass here: [6]. Also, can you check out Vardges Sureniants for me? NinaGreen has a question regarding the nomination. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I will complete this one next weekend if not earlier. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I didn't quite manage to get this one finished over the weekend but will try again over the next few days. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Gatoclass, any news on this one? Normally if a nom had been stale for this long, I would close it without notice, but given you are generally pretty reliable, and it's a busy time of the year, I thought I'd check if this is a realistic proposition to get done? Harrias talk 08:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC) I really just need one good evening to finish work on this one, I thought I'd get it done last weekend but couldn't quite make it as it's such a busy time of year. I think after Christmas I should be able to find a clear evening or two to wind it up. Gatoclass (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC) I've pretty much completed the rewrite, I just need a little more time to add a few cites, which I will probably do tomorrow, after which I will relist the nomination for review. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ready for re-review. Gatoclass (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Plenty long enough, and date of creation checks out fine. Hook fact is appropriately referenced inline in the article, and I AGF for the offline source. A lot of the references are offline, but spotchecks on the online sources reveal no evidence of copyvio. Good to go. Picture does not have complete licensing information, so I am not happy for that to appear on the main page at the moment, and have struck it out. Harrias ^talk 09:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the license issues. Proudbolsahye (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, on what basis do you list US Government as author? I see nothing to prove that is the case on the linked page, rather Bain News Service is listed as creator? Harrias ^talk 10:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Um...Bain News Service photographs are part of the Bain Collection which is a collection purchased by the Library of Congress and is now in public domain since there are no known restrictions to the photographs. In fact, commons users even have their own {{PD-Bain}} tag which can be used for all items belonging to the collection. Proudbolsahye (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I see, that was not at all clear from the licensing though, which was my point. However, the fact remains that while the U. S. Government may now own it, they were not the author or creator. As with other images with the PD:Bain tag, the author should be listed as Bain News Service, publisher. Harrias ^talk 12:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay fixed the author issue. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. Now that my pedantry has been sorted, the image can be used! (Tick added here from above for clarity.) Harrias ^talk 19:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)