Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Jacobsen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator after reviewer issues.

Maria Jacobsen[edit]

Maria Jacobsen in 1910

Created by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nominated at 19:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg (Should be listed under July 12, not the 11th.) New, long enough, QPQ good. The hook's two citations don't use the same numbers (2k vs 3.6k). Can you verify with a third source? Also consider changing "3,600" to "thousands", especially if there isn't clear historical consensus on the number. Also the image should use a page link source (not a bare image URL) so its info can be verified. If it came from [1], the image's origins aren't very clear. The rationale for the license must be explained in the details section, esp. how the image was definitely taken in America pre-1923 (license should be as verifiable as possible). czar · · 08:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Also not sure that the Danish Peace Academy is a reliable source: "The Danish Peace Academy is an independent, non profit, low budget organization and educational site under development; produced by unpaid, voluntary learned specialists." [2] czar · · 08:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Czar, I have removed the 3,600 figure and replaced it with thousands as you recommended. The source is reliable. The information is verifiable with her diary and also with other sources. More importantly, the source is used in peer-reviewed journals such as ref #6 of the article (see ref #63). Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Simply stating that the source is reliable doesn't help allay my doubts about their editorial process. I can appreciate that one fact from the article was used in a peer-reviewed journal, but that doesn't clear the source publication or the individual article. (The orphan number discrepancy between the several sources contributes to my skepticism of their fact-checking rigor.) Side notes: "With the encouragement" sentence is unclear and needs citation when you have a chance. Also, the "and in July 1922" part. I'm prepared to accept the hook, but the image concerns haven't been addressed. I'd feel more comfortable about the Peace Academy source if Dickran was a scholar himself and not personally connected to the Bird's Nest orphanage. And is the image available by any other source? Even if offline, I can AGF, but I'm very hesitant about the website's authority for both the text and the image. The site's other content doesn't make me feel better. czar · · 04:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Czar (talk · contribs), I actually found out that the reason why there is a mix up in numbers is because the second source refers to the hiding of Armenian children in Lebanon after the Armenian Genocide. In other words, they are two different events. Excuse my mix up of sources. Anyhow, Dickran's source once again proves valid in that sense. The figure is also verified by the Armenian Genocide Museum-Insitute here. The figure is also given here (See page 135, "...by June, 1919, there were 3,600 children in Maria Jacobsen's secret family." However, I wouldn't want to use these sources because it doesn't provide the essential detail about her hiding these children from the Turks. Overall, Dickran's source is scholarly since it can be easily verifiable by other RS sources. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The genocide museum ref is worth adding as the primary on that sentence, for its authority. I'm still not sold on the reliability of the Peace source (regardless of its individual claims), but as I said, I think this is all fine to pass once the image details mentioned in my first post are cleaned up (bare URL, etc.). Good research on this article—much more effort than is common in DYK. czar · · 05:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Czar (talk · contribs), I couldn't find a duplicate copy of the photograph. However, I did change the bare URL and provided more description for the source. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
In case you so intended it, that template doesn't send notifications
Symbol possible vote.svg Significant portions of the text are directly copied or too closely paraphrased, and need to be completely rewritten. You can see these parts highlighted in specific via the copyvio link above, but the whole article should be written in original language, not just to avoid what the copyvio detector can find. czar · · 07:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Czar (talk · contribs), thank you for pointing that out. I fixed all of the close paraphrasing issues. I didn't change the blockquote for obvious reasons. The copyvio detector says "21%" due to the blockquote which is in fact a quote by Jacobsen herself. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
My concern: language lifted directly from the sources (I wasn't looking at the likeness percentage or quotes), which I'm sure you know has big implications for Wikipedia, especially if this article were to be unknowingly circulated for many years without another such check. Now seeing that you were the primary author, have you looked back on your previous edits to correct any similar practices used on prior articles? This article still has a few problems, mainly the Hansa section: "seven-year-old girl that the Turks had sold to a Bedouin family" and "a Turk gendarme discovered her ... fell from the tree unconscious". Ideally these parts would have been mixed with other facts for completely original sentences. I don't want to be overbearing, but I can't stress the ugly ramifications of plagiarism enough. If this was not a one-time accident and it may be possible that you have done this in the past, I can find help to go through your previous edits. A brief spot check of your last couple DYKs look okay and the tool is down so I can't check more, but I trust that you'll be honest with how often you may have used this practice in the past and we can correct it. czar · · 22:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Fixed the issues. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
16px Note to closer: I'd appreciate a second opinion on the image. We cannot confirm its origins and I'm not completely sure which PD tag is appropriate, since the photo was ostensibly taken in Turkey. czar ·: · 23:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg In light of more plagiarism, I have to take back my AGF check. Truthfully, I don't know if an article based on modified copy/paste can even stay in the encyclopedia, but I also don't have any more time to dedicate to this topic czar  15:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Copy and paste plagiarism remains. The second sentence of the article: "Maria Jacobsen watched the persecution of Armenians from close quarters and tried to save as many Armenian women and children as possible. She also pleaded with the Ottoman authorities, provided clandestine relief, and recorded what she witnessed" The original: "Maria Jacobsen watched the persecution of Armenians from close quarters and tried to save as many Armenian women and children as she could. She pleaded with the Ottoman authorities, provided clandestine relief, and recorded what she saw." This type of editing (copy and pasting and changing one word) is intentionally deceptive and when Czar tries to alert you to the fact and guarantees are made that "I fixed all of the close paraphrasing issues" when this remains in the lead(!), it casts further doubts on the good faith being made. Note: Further, this may be a longstanding editing practice. From the last approved DYK Armenian cultural heritage in Turkey, "Most of the properties formerly belonging to Armenians were confiscated by the Turkish government and turned into military posts, hospitals, schools and prisons. Many of these were also given to Muslim migrants or refugees who had fled from their homelands during the Balkan Wars. The legal justification for the seizures was the law of Emval-i Metruke (Law of Abandoned Properties), which legalized the confiscation of Armenian property if the owner did not return." And from the original source: "Most of the property belonging to Armenians and Syriac Christians, including houses and churches, was either appropriated by the state and turned into military posts, hospitals, schools and prisons or distributed to Muslim migrants who had been expelled from their hometowns during the Balkan Wars. Property was also sold to local leading families. This was justified under the law of Emval-i Metruke (literally “abandoned properties”), which legalized the appropriation of Armenian and Syriac Christian property if the owner did not return within a certain period of time." Looking over a couple other articles, if the cite is not linkable (if it is behind a pay wall or not published online), the writing tends to be awful close to the original source's writing. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the above mentioned sentence. I honestly don't think there are anymore paraphrasing issues. You guys can double check. As for the other page, that edit may or may not be mine because I wasn't the articles chief nominator and creator. Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I went through the WikiBlame for the mentioned line on the cultural heritage article, and the direct copy was in the original diff, later modified by someone else. Proudbolsahye only had two small edits on that article. On this article: again, the issue isn't "fixing" these edits so much as "fixing" the general practice—finding whether it was accidental or intentional, telling us how it happened, and showing some concern for reviewing where it may have happened on other articles instead of being defensive about it. We're trying to help. I assumed good faith, but that faith wanes when AbstractIllusions can poke holes in it. czar · · 16:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
...and as for this article, I just double checked. I do not see any other close paraphrasing. There's only 1 offline source and everything else is out in the open. Feel free to check to rest and let me know. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I would completely support a more good natured editor than I, maybe Czar, restoring the approval, but I can't assume enough good faith to restore it myself. Plagiarism remains. For example, "In July 1922, she settled in Zouk Michail near Byblos" and in the original "In July 1922 she settled in Zouk Michail which was between the cities of Byblos and Beirut." Or also "In 1920 and 1921, Jacobsen attempted to return to Kharpert but was not granted permission" and the original "In 1920-1921 Maria Jacobsen tried to go back to Kharberd, but Turkish authorities did not permit her to enter the Ottoman Empire". Czar said it better than I can, that this is about writing differently- combining and summarizing ideas rather than copy and pasting and changing words slightly. Changing "tried to go back" into "attempted to return" does not make it your own ideas. I will admit that I blamed wrongly in the first instance and offer apologies. However, there are others. Oscar S. Heizer, for example, the original reads "according to Heizer, they were assimilated as Muslims within weeks", the wikipedia article created by Proud reads: "Heizer also describes how some children were assimilated into Muslim Turks in a matter of weeks." Or further from the original "Oscar Heizer, the American Consul, reported that most of the deportees were killed by their guards shorty after leaving" and from the wikipedia article: "Heizer stated that most of the deportees were murdered shortly after they were told to leave." These are cosmetic minor changes (and only the ones that I have the time and energy to quickly check). Every editor worth their salt has close paraphrased at some point, so I'm not going to be overly self-righteous, but the practices of editing are causing way too much close paraphrasing. And the repeated incidents and hesitance to actually self-critically rewrite the articles when the mistakes are discovered makes it problematic for me to think this is DYK ready without a complete rewrite. (If I could give my 2 cents, three chance to remove close paraphrasing and they still remain, I think is too much time spent on this by multiple editors when we could be dealing with other issues. Czar asked repeatedly for a check of the entire article, not just the specific passages highlighted. I think this DYK nom should be retired--but leave that up to others.) AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Abstract, these are small things that can be fixed. I sincerely don't see any other paraphrasing issues with the article. I feel the new issues you brought up have aren't MAJOR in any way (I fixed them anyways). I am suggesting a new reviewer and if he or she finds any MAJOR problems with the article we can work accordingly. As of now, I don't see why an article should ever be removed when it is ready and good to go, especially when all other DYK requirements are met.

In regards to Heizer...I suggest leaving the discussion of that and other articles in the talk pages of those articles. Any other concerns, please ping me directly on my talk page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg If you would just stop and rewrite the piece, it could have been fixed and passed. But, from the original: "Jacobsen is considered one of the great saviours by Armenians in the Diaspora. In several documents she is referred to as mayrik--"stepmother" or "Mama" Maria Jacobsen." and from the wikipedia article: "Jacobsen, who is considered one of the great saviours by Armenians in the Diaspora, was often referred to as "mayrik" (Armenian: mother) or "Mama." For those keeping track, those two versions have 17 similar words in the same order between versions (and what really frustrates me is that you plagiarized the British spelling from the source, despite the general use of American spellings throughout the rest of the article). Other reviewers can of course decide to pass the article, but you are plagiarizing constantly, it is major (unethical, illegal, and against wikipedia's policies). To quote Czar above: "I can't stress the ugly ramifications of plagiarism enough." Please stop plagiarizing. Maria deserves a DYK for truly heroic actions, but without a complete rewrite, your unwillingness to understand the problems and fix them, means that the article should not go up for a DYK. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
When have I been unwilling to fix them? The original source contained two sentences. I have combined them and worded it originally to the best of my abilities. That ultimately means that I have paraphrased and reflected the source to the best of my abilities Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, combining two sentences together is plagiarism. See: this guide and pay specific note of this statement "The writer has compressed the author's opinions into fewer sentences by omitting several phrases and sentences. But this compression does not disguise the writer's reliance on this text for the concepts he passes off as his own." Or WP:Plagiarism or WP:Paraphrase or WP:Copy-paste. As Czar originally specified, the problem is not those incidents the software highlights, or that editors find, the problem may be more endemic in the writing. (Czar also offered to help you figure this out--an offer certainly worth considering). If you copied two sentences from a source and combined them together with 2/3 of the words staying exactly the same, that is plagiarism. A good rule of thumb I try to use is 4 words: if you have 4 words the exact same as the source that is either plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Once again, every editor will make this mistake in the course of writing articles, so I am not saying you are a bad editor. But, if I can lift up almost any sentence and find multiple strings of words directly copied from the source, that is plagiarism and should be rejected out of hand. Blunt: This article has severe plagiarism and close paraphrasing problems, it needs to be rewritten entirely for DYK consideration. Fixing the times we catch problems is not sufficient. Please think about going back to earlier articles and changing them at places you may have made this mistake. But some awareness of the problem is a necessary first step. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'm going to have to request a new reviewer. I have meticulously checked each sentence for plagiarism and have worked with AbstractIllusions to remove and resolve the issues. A third-party reviewer is needed to check the article for any additional issues. All other DYK requirements are met. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Some overly close wording remains: compare "Cliff where Armenians were hurled to death" to "Cliff where Armenians were hurled to death" from here. I'm also concerned that in the process factual errors may have been introduced: for example, "sheltered 206 Armenian children" is cited to a source claiming 208 children. The article also needs copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I have made the necessary copy-editing and fixed the issues you have raised. Please feel free to take a look and vote/comment accordingly. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Anything happening here? Time for a re-review? --PFHLai (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • A number of the Gallery captions are still quite close to the source. Without being able to check a significant proportion of the sources for further issues, I wouldn't feel comfortable passing this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: In addition, the accuracy issues which Nikkimaria brought up also still remains (once again, not the specific errors identified by the reviewer, but the general issue). AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I rephrased the captions of photos and removed other captions. Looking forward for the rest of the review! :) Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed. Paraphrasing issues have been revised and solved. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Close paraphrasing and inaccurate statements remain in the article. I'm more than willing to help 'clean up' the article for any mistakes after a complete rewrite (originally asked for on July 20 by Czar) to get this to a new reviewer. However, at this point, a new reviewer is not needed--the issues brought up have not been resolved. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you be specific and tell me where there are issues please? The article is practically rewritten. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I will not be specific--on prior incidents, you fixed the individual incidents without fixing the general problem, leaving problems on the page and requiring more work from everyone. The two ways out from this situation are: 1. Rewrite the article from the ground up. Treat what is currently there as a set of notes and work on creating an original article going back to sources. If you do this, I'll fix any problems which remain. Or 2. Contact an experienced editor to work on close paraphrasing problems in your editing and start fixing some other articles you have done this to. (The fact is even in the article you are trying to get to be a featured article, there is close paraphrasing--maybe that would be a good place to work on dealing with this issue and being a better editor going forward.) If you do this, I'll fix the problems in this page and a new reviewer can figure it out. If neither of these happen, a new reviewer will be just a waste of time. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
"General problems" can be discussed on my talk page, not on a DYK nomination page. I will honor your second point, since I have already told you that the article is practically rewritten with special emphases of revising paraphrasing issues you and other users brought up. Nikkimaria would have been a good candidate for this and I was in full support of her review. However, the sources are offline and neutral reviewers may run into problems and barriers trying to review this article. All I ask, in the most sincerest manner that one can ask, is for you to please check the article along with the offline sources that you appear to have. As for myself, I will ask Bluemoonset if he knows anyone that is willing to review this. However, like I said, not all people have access to the offline source. If there were persisting paraphrasing issues, I wouldn't have bothered going this far and continuously asking for reviewers. In fact, I have already removed all photo captions. Since, as you may know, those are the hardest to paraphrase since I found that the photograph captions are already condensed tremendously. Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing my offer to help correct the mistakes which remain on the page and to get it to DYK. The issues on this article have not been solved since they were raised almost two months ago--my 'No' review remains (based both on the problems and the too lengthy attempts to fix those problems). Promoter: Please note Czar's question about the image way up there (don't want this to get lost in the discussion). AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
What I'm most concerned about is the assertion that the Juskalian article has overly close paraphrasing: surely this should be documented on the Juskalian FAC page. In addition, that article is currently a Good Article, and problematic paraphrasing is against GA standards.
For this review, we have a quandary: given the many problems that were found relating to the online sources (both with close paraphrasing and accuracy), Nikkimaria doesn't feel that, although issues from the online sources have been dealt with, she can approve the article as she is unable to check the offline sources. AGF means we assume good faith, but once you have found many errors because they could be checked and thus identified—though AbstractIllusions is maintaining that issues still remain to be solved—it is only reasonable to expect that a similar level of issues are present in material based on the offline sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry got confused for a second. Yes, reference number 7 is offline. However, if you see the details provided, I have made sure source #7 provides a "she said this..." type of information. They are mostly quotations from her diary. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Considering the extent of issues in the nominator's work, and this very article, I don't feel comfortable putting it on the MP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay as nominator I withdraw. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)