Template:Did you know nominations/Genocide of indigenous peoples
- 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) 04:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Genocide of indigenous peoples edit
... that the genocide of indigenous peoples has been a recurring theme in human history?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rufus the Hawk
Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nominated at 02:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC).
I have a problem with the hook. For one thing, the answer is going to be "yes" from almost anyone who reads it, so it isn't "hooky". Second, "recurring theme" seems like the wrong way to put it. It's something that has happened over and over, not a "theme" in the sense of an aesthetic motif or perceived theoretical pattern. Third, it's vague: I'm not sure I've learned anything from the sentence. Would Darkness Shines consider coming up with a hook that's a little more concrete and informative? There's a lot of good stuff in the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the genocide of indigenous peoples led Bartolomé de las Casas to write Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias in 1552?
- ALT2 ... that the German Government apologised for the genocide of indigenous peoples in German South-West Africa? Darkness Shines (talk)
Needs full review; original hook struck, so both ALT hooks should be included in review. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Alt 1 seems like the stronger hook to me, but I'm unable to access the relevant pages of the source. From what I can see in preview, however, the page number may be incorrect. I would prefer that someone else proceed with the review. I've done some copyediting, but the topic carries a special obligation of responsibility that I don't feel I can fulfill without access to the source used. Apologies. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Reiterating call for full review, since original reviewer wishes someone else to proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, this article has a couple of unexpanded sections, which would need to be either expanded or removed to conform with DYK guidelines. Secondly, while I think the article contains useful information, some of the statements strike me as potentially POV and would need to be carefully checked against sources. I refer basically to the numerous statements that this, that and the other action were "genocidal" in nature; charges of genocide are often controversial and contested, so it would be important in my view that such statements are attributed rather than presented in Wikipedia's voice, except of course in instances where the charges of genocide are uncontested and widely accepted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I want another reviewer, Gato sucks quite simply and finds issues where none exist, given my previous on Anti Muslim Violence in India which he never even finished. Would appreciate a link to DYK rules which says that a new section added AFTER the nom makes it fucking fail ya. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines, given your intemperate language, I can't imagine that any other reviewer would want to take this on. It should be a matter of less than a minute for you to delete the unexpanded East Timor and Philippines sections subsequently added, rather than complain about it here. The DYK rule is that the article cannot be approved with such problematic or empty sections in it, whenever they were added: see WP:DYKSG#D7. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: DarknessShines attempted to withdraw this nomination by making this edit, which was incorrectly formatted. Undoing the attempted withdrawal, and redoing it properly. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)