Template:Did you know nominations/Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews

 * ... that the 1944 Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews criticized the US State Department for its obstructionism and even alleged conspiracies related to helping the Jews during The Holocaust? Source: https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=vAEnAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA211&dq=Report+to+the+Secretary+on+the+Acquiescence+of+This+Government+in+the+Murder+of+the+Jews&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwhvnD96zaAhUIf7wKHWy-DzwQ6AEIVTAI#v=onepage&q=Report%20to%20the%20Secretary%20on%20the%20Acquiescence%20of%20This%20Government%20in%20the%20Murder%20of%20the%20Jews&f=false
 * Reviewed: The Haunting of Amphipolis
 * Comment: Hope the hook is not too long. The title of the report is also quite interesting and it would be a shame to abbreviate it. Maybe we could loose the "to the Secretary" if this length is an issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hope the hook is not too long. The title of the report is also quite interesting and it would be a shame to abbreviate it. Maybe we could loose the "to the Secretary" if this length is an issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 04:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Piotrus, I'm afraid the hook is too long at 240 characters; removing " to the Secretary" will reduce it to 224 characters, which really isn't short enough. Probably the best place to save space is by condensing what comes after "Department" and making it clearer what the State Department did. It's tough, when the full article name uses up 89 of the available 200 characters, but something interesting can be made of the remaining 100+. You could also seek consensus at WT:DYK for an extension of the 200 max, or ask for help devising a hook within the limits. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: the WT:DYK discussion produced three hooks by SoWhy, all under 200 characters, which I have included below, but incorporating Piotrus's suggested removal of " to the Secretary" to make them even shorter. (I have struck the original overlong hook now that we have three are short enough. Piotrus has expressed a preference for ALT3:
 * ALT1: ... that the 1944 Report on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews convinced Roosevelt to create the War Refugee Board?
 * ALT2: ... that the 1944 Report on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews criticized the US State Department for alleged obstructionism and conspiracies?
 * ALT3: ... that the 1944 Report on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews alleged that the US State Department prevented the rescue of European Jews during the Holocaust?
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that the hook issue has been settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citations check out (struck ALT1 as less interesting), no apparent copyvios, QPQ done., this isn't a DYK requirement per se, but the article is slightly confusing. What happened to the report? The article treats it in the past tense with details obscure (e.g., "The document has been described as a 17 or 18 pages-long memorandum."). Was it classified and then destroyed, with its contents staying unpublished? --Usernameunique (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources I've found did not mention what happened to the physical copy; presumably it was destroyed or archived as most such relatively routine documents. I included all details I've found. I am afraid we could only speculate as the answer about your queries, through it's clear that the report was republished and became public at some point. How did it happen, exactly, I did not see mentioned in the sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Fair enough, all set then. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I had to pull this because of possible inaccuracies in the article and hook. I did initially try to tweak the hook to more closely follow the sources, but when I looked at the article I noticed what looked like similar inaccuracies that I didn't have time to resolve. I'm not going to detail them now as I'm tired and about to log off, but the article and hook imply that the report condemned the State Department for preventing the rescue of "European Jews", broadly speaking, a highly exceptional claim to make, when the underlying sources appear to be referring to a particular incident when the State Department allegedly ignored an opportunity to rescue 70,000 Jews. Gatoclass (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? Yes, the source given for the hook mentions 70k, through the context is not that clear, I assume this number was related to some refugees somewhere. But other sources don't mention this number and support the hook. The report itself is clear on that, and talks about the entirety of the European Jewery: "Unless remedial steps of a drastic nature are taken, and taken immediately, I am certain that no effective action will be taken by this government to prevent the complete extermination of the Jews in German controlled Europe, and that this Government will have to share for all time responsibility for this extermination". See also ; two pages in it talks about 100,000+, as far as estimates, and that's just an example. It is clear to me that the generalization presented in the hook is supported by the sources. If you disagree, this is something better discussed on article's talk. As far as I am concerned, the 70k number is a poorly sourced, unclear example, at best, one of several examples the report is presenting as a case for said generalization, and has no place in the hook. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been a month since the last comments: any updates? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't look at me, it is not me who left this hanging... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay in getting back to this, I've been struggling with DYK burnout and a few other issues lately and this one went into the too-hard basket for a while.
 * I've given the article a tweak and I'm proposing a tweak to ALT4, as follows:


 * ALT5: ... that the 1944 Report on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews alleged that certain officials in the US State Department wilfully obstructed attempts to rescue European Jews during the Holocaust? Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ALT6: ... that the 1944 Report on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews accused certain US State Department officials of using security concerns as a pretext for obstructing the rescue of European Jews during the Holocaust?
 * Sources
 * I have also edited the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing Alt 6 to make finalization, easier, hopefully. Although the above sources remain for Alt7, and suggest read through the strike if anyone has questions about Alt7. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Shorter version:
 * ALT7: ...that the 1944 Report on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews accused US State Department officials of using security concerns to obstruct the rescue of Holocaust refugees. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fine with any of them, but it is not me who has to (can) accept them. Ping User:BlueMoonset - what can we do now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, perhaps can also help to get this to move a little.  I tend to agree that 2-3 may be a bit vague.  So Gatoglass, do you want 2-3 stricken, since the nominator is fine with 5 and 7? Other thought? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with either ALT5 or ALT7, but I can't verify ALT5 because I authored it, so it would be best if somebody else were to verify these hooks and make a choice between them. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to verify ALT5 and/or ALT7. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I will volunteer if it helps to finalise the hook. ALT5 is by far the hookier (IMO) but has 222 characters. Having read the discussion it seems to conclude that the hooks need to be 200 characters or less. Both are appropriately cited inline and accurately reflect the sources. Can I suggest:


 * Symbol confirmed.svgALT8 ...that the 1944 Report on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews accused US State Department officials of wilfully obstructing attempts to rescue Holocaust refugees?


 * 190 characters., this seem to me to meet all of the requirements. Would you be happy with it? Or reject it and we'll go back to the drawing board. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am good with it :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)