Talk:Sumpul River massacre

To-do list
—Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Review the commonality of sources saying Honduran soldiers shot fleeing refugees, and determine whether this merits mention in the body as a common pre-Commission belief, an enduring minority view, or both.
 * Review early sources that estimated of 300 casualties (Sunday Times and Chicago Tribune) and re-factor notes.
 * Review sources mentioning the use of helicopters to hunt civilians, and determine whether this merits a more prominent mention in the body.
 * Review "EXPERT REPORT OF PROFESSOR TERRY L KARL" for additional information about the massacre.
 * UN Truth Commission reports that the bodies were never buried, but around the same time, UPI claims authorities are unearthing a projected 400 bodies.

Lead

 * The following is a continuation of a discussion at User talk:Compassionate727.

So, part of the problem with being clear about exactly what happened is that nobody knows exactly what happened. And I can't say that nobody knows exactly what happened because there aren't any sources that say that.

Your confusion (which is the same confusion other DYK reviewers have had) is primarily about the nature of Honduran participation, and your confusion reflects my lack of knowledge, which results from sources disagreeing about it. A few sources say that Honduran soldiers shot at Salvadoran refugees as they tried to cross the river; most, including the UN Truth Commission (which has been my starting point and which I'm treating as more or less authoritative), don't address this point at all, saying only that they prevented Salvadoran refugees from fleeing into Honduras and thereby enabled the massacre.

At this point, things become difficult for me. I'm dealing with an unclear matter, but I can't say in the article that anything is unclear, because nobody else says that, so it would be OR. Personally, I'm not sure whether saying there is a dispute about a specific detail constitutes OR either, so I've made the nondecision of briefly acknowledging the existence multiple statistics (e.g. It left "at least 300" dead, with many sources placing the count at 600.) or multiple narratives (e.g. they were obstructed and possibly shot at by Honduran soldiers.) and explaining the reason for the difference in a footnote. It's a confusing solution, because it's basically doing what I'm not supposed to do and then tucking it away so that people don't see it, but I'm not sure what else to do. I don't even know where to look for an example of what I should do here because most decent articles have better sourcing to work with.

On another point entirely, the lead is probably poorly written because I have no experience writing these things. I'll ask for help at the GOCE. In the meantime, if you have any further comments, I welcome them. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I hear. But although you have two (or more?) different narrative lines, you still have to present the information according to the sources. The UN report seems like the best for the basic presentation. You could then add additional sections for alternate versions of the event, or put the alternate versions into footnotes. (For a far less complex example of the latter, I refer you to the second paragraph in my article Calgary White Hat—in the second paragraph under History, I present one version of the story, then put the second in a note.) Per WP:LEAD, the lead must summarize the basic points in the article. If controversial points of view are introduced in the article, they should be summarized here. I hope GOCE can help. Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead does not include all controversies, but only the prominent ones, in such manner as is consistent with its being a summary. This may be part of our disagreement. I didn't consider the question of whether Honduran soldiers shot at refugees to be of particular prominence, as that view is advanced by a small minority of sources. It is therefore explained in detail in neither the lead nor the main text of the body, but only in a footnote in the latter. I consider the disputed casualty count to the considerably more important, because sourcing is roughly equal. In addition, from my perspective, it is likely that the UN Truth Commission was cautious when inferring the casualty count, given the delicate nature of their task, so they were essentially saying "we are certain that at least 300 people died". It's likely the NY Times did more projection, but there's no reason to think they did it less accurately, unless my entirely offhand understanding that the NY Times has a good reputation with regards to these things is erroneous and/or less applicable here than I think it to be. (Again, this is all in my amateur opinion.) That's why I everywhere mention both numbers: we as editors have a high degree of confidence in both statements.
 * I guess the question for us, then, is whether you still believe that the question of Honduran shooting is more important than I consider it to be. I do appreciate your input, because as much as I am arguing with you about this, you are probably better at it than I am. I guess I just want to ensure you understand why I made my decisions, given I read all the sources and you presumably have not. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Copy-editing
I've accepted the copy-editing request at the Guild of Copy Editors. I will be copy editing the article. Feel free to post questions and comments. Vyeh (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I finished copy-editing. Vyeh (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)