Template:Did you know nominations/Rape during the Darfur genocide
- 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 Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 18:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Rape during the Darfur genocide edit
- ... that rape during the Darfur genocide was on the International Criminal Court indictment for Sudanese president Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo
Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nominated at 22:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC).
That claim is not backed up by article (which say he was indicted, which is not same as guilty). --Soman (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ref 11, [1] "three judges sitting on the International Criminal Court will decide soon whether to confirm an arrest warrant against a head of state, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, on grounds that he masterminded rape as genocide against three ethnic groups in Darfur that have challenged his power." Darkness Shines (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- And ref 18 [2] "The decision to issue the warrant of arrest follows an Application made by the Prosecutor of the ICC, Luis Moreno-Ocampo on 14 July 2008. In its decision of 4 March 2009, the Pre-Trial Chamber indicted al-Bashir as an indirect (co-) perpetrator for five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture, rape) and two counts of war crimes (direct attacks on civilians and pillaging)" Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Key words/phrases here: "will decide" (i.e. possible future action, my emphasis) and "indicted" (which is different from "found guilty"). --Soman (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Were in the hook is the word "guilty"? It says indicted. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I misread the hook (indict/incite...). I'd suggest to add "ICC" to the hook, before indictment. --Soman (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Soman:Added. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I misread the hook (indict/incite...). I'd suggest to add "ICC" to the hook, before indictment. --Soman (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Were in the hook is the word "guilty"? It says indicted. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Key words/phrases here: "will decide" (i.e. possible future action, my emphasis) and "indicted" (which is different from "found guilty"). --Soman (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The hook needs to spell out ICC as "International Criminal Court" and indicate that the person named is the president of Sudan. --Orlady (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Orlady: Done Darkness Shines (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- The article is long enough and new enough, and the hook fact is supported by the article and cited sources. However, I have misgivings about the policy compliance of the article. My concern starts with the title, which implicitly treats "Darfur genocide" as an accepted fact, and continues with the lead sentence, which glibly states "throughout the ongoing genocide in the Darfur war there has been a systematic campaign of rape which has been used as a weapon of war." While most observers call the Darfur situation a "genocide," I don't believe it has attained the status of proven fact, and terms like "ongoing", "systematic", and "weapon of war" represent judgements that don't appear to have been made formally by the entities in a position to make those kinds of judgements. IMO, the title of the article should be revised to "Rape during the Darfur war" and other statements (not just in the lead section) should be recast as "reports" and "allegations", rather than as objective fact.
- A further concern is the unusually vague nature of many statements about the sources of information. The "International response" section of the article (which is misnamed) contains several factual statements and quotations that are attributed to a U.S. State Department report, U.S. AID, Médecins Sans Frontières, and a U.S. official, but the specific sources (e.g., report titles) aren't identified. Each of these statements is attributed to some other source that apparently quoted the original source. In one case, the article says the report was 8 pages long and in another case it gives the specific date the report was issued, but if these reports are being relied upon for factual information, the article should identify them. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- You said it yourself, most sources call it a genocide, do the title is accurate per common name. Using secondary sources rather than primary sources such as USAID is what we are meant to do. And the reports are not allegations, they are facts as no other reports exist which refute them. The article will not be getting moved, your concerns have no basis in policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Based on User:Darkness Shines' reply to comments, it looks like this nomination can't go anywhere. Too much POV and not enough identifiable sourcing. Too bad... --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
