Jump to content

Talk:In Praise of Blood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 SL93 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 04:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is long enough, well-cited, and was new enough when nominated. Copyvio check OK. Hook length OK. Good effort in article to create balance on a controversial topic. QPQ done. Ready to go. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC) -->[reply]
@Yoninah: the quote was there when I reviewed it but the article has come under attack and seems to be unstable at the moment. I think we need to wait until there is a stable version before we point to it from the main page. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Please keep us updated. Yoninah (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, Yoninah, and Narutolovehinata5:, Not yet, sorry. The article was disputed, then frozen, and is now to be rebuilt. I hope to be more helpful soon, after family Christmas subsides. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just finish the review once the changes have been done. I noticed that you've made multiple changes to the article so it seems a new reviewer will be needed in any case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, Thanks -- and of course you are right that the re-worked article will need a new review from someone who is not me. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe and HouseOfChange: I've removed the tags. Could you please provide a new hook that reflects the current content of the article? Edge3 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would ALT1... that the book In Praise of Blood was described as "an immediate, destabilizing influence on the world of orthodox Rwandan scholarship"? work as a hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Approving ALT1, with the offline source accepted in good faith. There is a neutrality tag that remains on the article, due to a dispute both on article's talk page and the OR noticeboard, which has recently led to an editing restriction on ANI imposed against a party to the dispute.

The DYK may proceed, Rule D6 notwithstanding. (See WP:DYKSG.) Rule D6 refers to "unresolved edit-warring", but in this case, the editors have engaged in WP:DR. Our DYK process, which focuses on article content rather than editor behavior, need not be delayed further by the ANI discussion. Edge3 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally won't promote this article with a neutrality tag still on it. Someone else might though, but I doubt it. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that neutrality and stability are two of the DYK criteria, this nomination cannot be approved until those are resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93 and Narutolovehinata5: Frankly, the whole reason there's a neutrality tag is that there was one editor who was disputing the article's neutrality. I haven't read the relevant discussions in their entirety (they're quite lengthy), but it appears there were attacks and other behavioral concerns that led to a topic ban. I really don't think it makes much sense for DYK to be delayed by a concern raised by a single editor, especially one who is no longer permitted to edit Wikipedia in this topic area. That's why I was willing to issue an WP:IAR waiver when I approved the hook. Edge3 (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag as the dispute is no longer ongoing because of the topic ban. (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content section

[edit]

Consider the possibility of separating the Content section into two sections having to do with: 1) the writing of the book and 2) the content of the book. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also to consider are diagrams of the respective timelines for writing the book and/or the Rwanda events described in the book. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob K31416: I agree the book's outline is complicated. IPOB is not a scholarly book that traces a line through Rwanda history -- it is a commercial nonfiction book following the adventures of a young reporter who stumbled on a big "crime" story and later pursued it. The book follows the sequence of the reporter's life and investigations, which is why it begins chapter 1 in Zaire in 1997. This article is about the book, not about the crimes. Although I have been accused of wanting to turn this article into an "indictment" of the RPF, on the contrary, I think we should keep our focus here on the book.
I see that some material from this book has been added to other Wikipedia articles including Double genocide theory (Rwanda) and Massacres of Hutus during the First Congo War. The article Rwandan Patriotic Front could use more of it. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, it might be useful to clarify that by putting in the first paragraph of the lead the idea, "... book following the adventures of a young reporter who stumbled on a big "crime" story and later pursued it." Bob K31416 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per your suggestion, I put that idea into the lead of the Content section. (The article lead summarizes material already in the body.) HouseOfChange (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Maybe a word other than adventures, which sounds to me like a fun thing. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes/killing

[edit]
In the lead, consider changing "the war crimes against Hutus" to the more specific "the killing of Hutu civilians". Bob K31416 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Praise_of_Blood&oldid=1253899246"