Template:Did you know nominations/2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident


 * 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Only hook offered is problematic and nominator has been insistent on using it; also, significant neutrality problems in article

2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident

 * ... that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy of Iran made the American navy sailors kneel with their hands behind their heads after they were seized for illegal entry into the Iranian waters?


 * Reviewed: Diwata-1

Created by Plot Spoiler (talk). Nominated by Mhhossein (talk) at 12:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article is amateurishly written (and seems fixated on the hands-on-heads side of things) and contains a claim that "At first, it was suggested that a mechanical failure in at least one of the boats led them to the Iranian waters, an assumption which came wrong after the both boats returned to the United States under their own power" which isn't supported by the source (which says that the Navy moved on from this explanation, rather than it being an "assumption" which "came wrong"). There are also NPOV issues with some anti-Obama/anti-Iran commentator from the Washington Times being quoted repeatedly for no clear reason and no other commentators getting a look in. Not main page ready at present IMO. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nick-D: Thanks for reviewing the article. Please explain more about "amateurishly written". Which policy is violated do you think? To me, "the assumption came wrong" because "they acknowledged that there was no mechanical problem." Anyway, how can it be fixed? By the way, What NPOV issue is repeated there? Mhhossein (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've answered your two questions in my comments: you've misrepresented a source and picked out one ranting commentator for no clear reason. On your first point, the hook isn't even grammatically correct. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * However, I wouldn't call such an article "amateurish". Mhhossein (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nick-D:Do you still wish to keep on reviewing the nomination? Mhhossein (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's still a fail. The hook remains grammatically incorrect, and the article remains not up to scratch. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nick-D: If you really wish to keep on reviewing, please avoid making general comments. Please fix the grammatical error (or at least say what the problem is) and explain what problems you see in the article considering that some edits are done since our previous discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problems noted above haven't actually been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nick-D: I edited the article once again, although you did not explain why the sentence was wrong even after I made my own explanations. I see no more disputed points. Do you? Mhhossein (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just thought I would comment the the current proposed hook is not neutral. Wikipedia is not the place to push a pro-Iranian and/or pro-Shia agenda. It sounds like something from an Iranian government-backed news report. Regardless of what happens with the article, a completely new hook should be written.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  04:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Jolly: Nope, never! The hook is heavily supported by western reliable sources. How can you call this "pro-Iranian and/or pro-Shia agenda?" Mhhossein (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to grasp what a neutral point of view is about. Their arrest is a fact and should be covered in the article, but when Wikipedia choses which facts to draw from contentious articles, we need to be careful. We should chose facts that do not weigh to one side of the story. If this article were to reach the Main Page, it's probably going to get a lot of views.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  06:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not considering it neutral is a biased approach, in my opinion (in my opinion of course). In what way is the hook not neutral? The hook is not giving weigh to one side of the story, is it? All sides are sure that the sailors "knelt with their hands behind their heads". Mhhossein (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately, I have to agree with Jolly Janner. This article asserts undue weight onto the Iranian side, especially in the section about reactions. Furthermore, I'd like to stress that saying things like "Nope, never" when flaws are pointed out to you is counterproductive with regards to your efforts to get this DYK promoted to the main page. In closing: I stand with Jolly Janner that the hook is contentious, and I will add as well that some work on this article needs to be done in order to balance it out a bit. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  23:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your intervention Amberrock, but I should tell you that you are missing a point, probably because of failing to read the comments well. As you see in our recent comments, we're discussing the "hook". Could you please tell me how you fond it POV? I mean, per the policy and the clear definition (i.e. "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"), could you please tell me how it suffers POV issues when all sides are sure that the sailors "knelt with their hands behind their heads" and there's no counter viewpoint? Moreover, please consider that we have discussed and rewritten some parts of the article (as you see on the TP). Mhhossein (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I find the hook unnatural and distorted, ergo highly POV. Normally when one gets arrested you don't get stuck on the actual stance that the arrestee assumed when being arrested and for sure you don't make it a DYK hook. There seems to be some sort of fixation on that particular aspect of the arrest which derives from the desire of the revolutionary guards and their superiors to use this incident as a propaganda tool and as an attempt to showcase some type of humiliation ritual. Attempting to make such contrived attempts at ritual humiliation a DYK hook smacks of heavy-handed POV. The article is also heavily propagandistic by enumerating at length the POV of every medium to high echelon Iranian leader as they try to score propaganda points against the US. All in all this article and its hook are completely unacceptable for main page exposure. Dr.   K.  04:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr.K. : One can hardly agree on your points, when you don't tend to rely on discussing based on the policies and instead prefer to judge the points yourself. I don't reject POV allegations, if there exist any of them based on the existing clear definitions. Are you trying to say that the hook is not "interesting"? Mhhossein (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One can hardly agree on your points, when you don't tend to rely on discussing based on the policies and instead prefer to judge the points yourself. Please do not be condescending. Read what I wrote above: I find the hook unnatural and distorted, ergo highly POV. WP:POV is one of our core policies and I have explained at length why this hook fails it. If you don't understand how this hook fails NPOV after my detailed explanation and those of the other editors who have commented here, it just shows how great your POV is. That's not surprising given the way you have dismissed all the reviewers who have commented in this template about the hook problem. Dr.   K.  16:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I find the hook unnatural and distorted, ergo highly POV. OK, but how? Per WP:POV all significant views published in reliable sources should be represented: "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". If you really have a point here based on this definition, you can discuss it so that we can fix it (as Nick-D did here and we tried to solve the issues). Naturally, I can't accept your general comments on the article. Btw, "Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative," per WP:POVPUSH . Mhhossein (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide the diff wherein I called you a POV-pusher as you allege? Otherwise please retract this falsehood and the related sanctimonious remarks. Dr.   K.  03:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "it just shows how great your POV is" made me think so. Anyway, I'll strike them and sorry for that. Mhhossein (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr.K I stroke that. By the way, your "sanctimonious remarks" is also the same to me. Mhhossein (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg I think it's time to just end this nomination. This has gone on for weeks, yet the nominator has shown no real interest in fixing the flaws pointed out by a handful of reviewers, and instead repeatedly assumes bad faith. This is going nowhere. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  16:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Amberrock: Can you please say which point is not addressed, considering the recent edits (be specific please)? Non of what you said is a suitable reason for rejecting this nomination. Mhhossein (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of other reviewers as well as myself have pointed out some serious POV issues with this article. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to address those issues, which means that this nomination is drawn into a deliberate stalemate. To that, the only response can be to reject the nomination altogether. We can be patient, but we can't have this floating about forever. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  11:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Amberrock Nearly all what was mentioned by those editors were discussed and resolved on the article TP (did you check it?) and you see how willing I was to address the points. You and Dr.K kept on making general comments and refrained from bringing your specific points to the article talk page, although I had pinged both of you. You, for example, have just said: "This article asserts undue weight onto the Iranian side, especially in the section about reactions." OK, but which part or sentence exactly has POV issues? Another time, if you have a new point about the POV issues (and other issues) let the editors know about that on the article TP. Your insisting on rejecting the nomination is dubious to me, to be frank. Mhhossein (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You and Dr.K kept on making general comments and refrained from bringing your specific points to the article talk page Please do not conflate the issues. I was addressing the hook first, then the general article. I don't have to go to the article talkpage to address the hook. It is ok to discuss it here. My points about the hook are not general as you allege. They are very specific. Please read them again. I don't have to copy-paste them here. Having said that, please realise that I have already made my points. I don't have to keep replying to your pings because we are now at the stage where I have to copy-paste my replies to you. This is a sure indicator that our discussion is not going anywhere. Thankfully, this is a community project. Whoever examines this discussion will evaluate all points and reach a decision on promoting this DYK or not. Since our conversation is not going anywhere, the more I reply to you, the more your counter-replies may continue until the volume of the discussions becomes absurdly large. I will try to prevent that by telling you from now that I am basically finished with this stage of the discussion. If you change the hook I may come back to share my ideas. But your previous reply here Nope, never!, including the exclamation mark, leaves very little hope for such an occurrence. Best of luck with this DYK. Dr.   K.  17:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You failed to explain how it violates NPOV based on the clear definition for POV. In fact you did not say how and why the hook was "unnatural and distorted"? How does it violate NPOV? Mhhossein (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You failed to explain how it violates NPOV based on the clear definition for POV. In fact you did not say how and why the hook was "unnatural and distorted"? How does it violate NPOV? I copy and paste my reply to you from above: Having said that, please realise that I have already made my points. I don't have to keep replying to your pings because we are now at the stage where I have to copy-paste my replies to you. This is a sure indicator that our discussion is not going anywhere. See what I mean? I already predicted that much. Goodbye. Dr.   K.  17:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Closer's comment: Mhhossein, you have had four separate reviewers tell you that the hook is not acceptable. Instead of proposing alternate hooks, you dug in your heels and insisted on your original. This is the primary reason I'm closing this now. In future, if you have someone objecting to your hook, ask for help in crafting a new one. Recognize that issues you may not be able to appreciate can prevent a hook from being approved. Next time, I hope that the reviewer simply strikes a problematic hook, taking it out of consideration, so the nomination can move forward.

There are other reasons to close it beyond the hook, including overall neutrality: I was astounded, when I read the article just now, to see that the "hands behind their heads" fact was included four times over the course of the article. To repeat that fact over and over is far from neutral. I don't see that any of the specific issues raised by Nick-D nearly a month ago, including the unbalanced overuse of the Washington Times source, were ever addressed (it's used for two of the "hands behind their heads" phrases), and there are non-neutral phrasings and other balance issues, including the severely tilted "Reaction" section. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)