Template:Did you know nominations/Youngest British soldier in World War I
- 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 PFHLai (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Youngest British soldier in World War I
[edit]- ...
that the youngest British soldier in World War I was a thirteen-year-old machine gunner at the Battle of the Somme who had joined up aged twelve?
- Reviewed: Roman Putin
Created by Whitney.davis (talk), Spinningspark (talk). Nominated by Spinningspark (talk) at 13:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC).
- Perhaps I'm confused, but shouldn't this article be called "Sidney Lewis"? It is the person that is the topic here, not the record itself. Yes, I see that there is another person mentioned, but as that person also has plenty of historical background as well, that should be another article on its own. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that either Maher or Lewis merit an article on their own. They are both solely notable for being very young boy soldiers in WWI so an article on the individual persons would fail WP:ONEEVENT. A couple of other things to note: Maher was never claimed to be the youngest soldier in WWI (although only 13) so an article on him is doubly unjustified. The claim is rather for an unnamed boy Maher met. Also note that this boy was actually on the front at age 12, which is younger than Lewis as he had passed his 13th birhtday by the time he was deployed. If Maher's claim is ever authenticated then this other boy may well turn out to have signed up before Lewis as well. SpinningSpark 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm with Maury. "Being the youngest British participant in World War I" wasn't an 'event', particularly in the sense of that policy: the page should either be divided among its participants or made a part of a larger British child soldiers or Child soldiers in World War I article. Cf. the other entries of Category:Child soldiers.
There are other issues with this particular article. See the talk page. — LlywelynII 10:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm with Maury. "Being the youngest British participant in World War I" wasn't an 'event', particularly in the sense of that policy: the page should either be divided among its participants or made a part of a larger British child soldiers or Child soldiers in World War I article. Cf. the other entries of Category:Child soldiers.
- Emended hook. — LlywelynII 10:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, regarding the use of The Daily Mirror and Daily Mail as sources, see WP:PUS. The Telegraph article just cites the Times article, so you're back down to one source. (It does support the emended hook, though.) — LlywelynII 11:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is an essay, not a guideline. Further, it doesn't say don't use them, it says don't use them if more reliable sources are available. Additionally, The Mirror is the paper that reported the story in 1916 so is the original source. The reputation of the paper in 1916 was almost certainly much greater than it is now. In any event, the existence of the esssay does not reduce the number of sources to one, that is an empty argument.
- You may have a case for incorporating this into a wider ranging article, but that is a much greater enterprise which I personally do not intend to undertake. If someone else wants to do it then I have no objection. However, I don't really see why that should be a barrier to DYK; the article is a perfectly fine canddate for DYK as it is. SpinningSpark 16:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's an explanation of WP:RS, which is a guideline, and you do have more reliable sources available. If you want to cite the 1916 article, that's great. Do that. Meanwhile, [please] don't use British tabloids. — LlywelynII 23:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I can't believe that you have read the sources and still come to the conclusion that the only one needed is the Telegraph article. The Mail article has a wealth of information that is not in the Telegraph. This includes reprints of the mother's letters, the exact unit Lewis fought in, his age at the Battle of the Somme, that Lewis served in bomb disposal in WW2, that he fought at Delville Wood, and he served in Austria after re-enlisting. The Mail may have its "exagerations" when it comes to reporting on one of its hobby-horses like immigration, striking workers, or the Labour government, but in this case it looks to me like a well-researched piece entirely based on the primary sources. In my view the only RS issue here is in the "quality" broadsheets changing Daily Mirror into "papers at the time" because they don't want to mention the Mirror was the paper that originally reported the story - a fact found only in the Mirror. SpinningSpark 11:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- The only one needed is the Sunday Times. The Telegraph article just says "I read the ST and this is what it said". The Mail article has plenty of info. It's also a tabloid. If it was the primary source for the article, add the original to the External Links section but (per WP:PRIMARY) you still shouldn't use it as an actual source for your article.
I really do get your frustration here, but it's not like I am responsible for the reputation the Mail has brought upon itself. — LlywelynII 14:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)- Isaw your underline, I got the Telegraph and the ST the wrong wway round in my previous post.
- I am now at a complete loss to understand what you are talking about. The Mail is not a primary source in the sense meant in WP:PRIMARY. It is an important source of information for the article, but that is not what is meant in WP:PRIMARY. Nor does it say that primary sources should be placed in the EL section - wherever did you get that from? It also does not say that primary sources should not be used at sources, only that they should be used with care. Basically, if the Mail is removed as a source that will leave a good half of the information on Lewis uncited so I am not going to do that and it is baffling why you are still maintaining that only the Sunday Times is needed. I can't comply with your request without eiher leaving the article short of cites or else butchering it, and I am not going to do that.
- The only one needed is the Sunday Times. The Telegraph article just says "I read the ST and this is what it said". The Mail article has plenty of info. It's also a tabloid. If it was the primary source for the article, add the original to the External Links section but (per WP:PRIMARY) you still shouldn't use it as an actual source for your article.
- I can't believe that you have read the sources and still come to the conclusion that the only one needed is the Telegraph article. The Mail article has a wealth of information that is not in the Telegraph. This includes reprints of the mother's letters, the exact unit Lewis fought in, his age at the Battle of the Somme, that Lewis served in bomb disposal in WW2, that he fought at Delville Wood, and he served in Austria after re-enlisting. The Mail may have its "exagerations" when it comes to reporting on one of its hobby-horses like immigration, striking workers, or the Labour government, but in this case it looks to me like a well-researched piece entirely based on the primary sources. In my view the only RS issue here is in the "quality" broadsheets changing Daily Mirror into "papers at the time" because they don't want to mention the Mirror was the paper that originally reported the story - a fact found only in the Mirror. SpinningSpark 11:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's an explanation of WP:RS, which is a guideline, and you do have more reliable sources available. If you want to cite the 1916 article, that's great. Do that. Meanwhile, [please] don't use British tabloids. — LlywelynII 23:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop tinkering with the markup in my posts and the hook. I have put them back to how I originally wrote them. If you want to suggest another hook, fine, do it as an ALT. If you want to correct me on something I have written, do it in your own posts. SpinningSpark 19:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
(Inter alia) Pending restoration of the wording supported by the article's sources, this is a fail. — LlywelynII 16:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the Imperial War Museum has announced the youngest authenticated British soldier in World War I was a thirteen-year-old machine gunner at the Somme who enlisted at twelve?
The article is heavily larded with citations to tabloids (and I observe that tabloids love this kind of story), but the Times is a reliable source and the Times reference citation is solid support for the ALT1 hook. I am not comfortable with the original hook because there are indications that there might possibly have been younger soldiers, but this is the youngest soldier authenticated by the Imperial War Museum. Accordingly, I've struck through the original hook.- Article is long enough and new enough, it's adequately supplied with footnotes, and I didn't detect any close paraphrasing issues. Before this can be approved, however, the cryptic footnote citing "van Emden (Kindle version)" needs to be expanded to become a proper reference citation. (I can guess that it may refer to the book by Richard van Emden that is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the article, but readers shouldn't have to guess.) --Orlady (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed the ref. It is the same book as ref#2 but as the book I actually read is the Kindle version (do Kindle have ISBNs?) I thought it best to cite it separately. SpinningSpark 11:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Good to go. As far as I know, the Kindle version is just a different format for a book -- and it has the same ISBN as the print edition. (But it's hard to cite page numbers for Kindle versions!) --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the endorsement. Not sure you are right about Kindle ISBNs. I just found an ISBN in the preface of the Kindle version (which is now in the article). It is a completely different number to the ones in gbooks but if I feed it to Amazon it gets recognised as a Kindle book, whereas the other numbers try to sell me a hardcover edition. SpinningSpark 22:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed the ref. It is the same book as ref#2 but as the book I actually read is the Kindle version (do Kindle have ISBNs?) I thought it best to cite it separately. SpinningSpark 11:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
