The Whistleblower is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Hey 1ST7, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-4 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review! --1ST7 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
"Bolkovac was reportedly fired and forced out of the country after attempting to report and shut down the ring." -- since she won the lawsuit, I think "reportedly" can be removed here. (In any case, it's established fact that she was fired, right? It's just the cause that was disputed.)
Ok, Mrs. and Little Miss Khazar are about to get home... more soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to say--just like last time, I'll make some tweaks, etc. as I go. Feel free to revert any you disagree with (and keep an eye on me that I'm not inadvertently adding any error.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
" For legal reasons, the pseudonym Democra Security was used for DynCorp International, the organization whose employees reportedly participated in and facilitated the sexual enslavement of the women." -- needs citation. Does the Lynch citation cover this, too?
Done I accidentally deleted the Lynch citation from that sentence while adding it to the plot section. --1ST7 (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
"Viewers are left with the impression that "the worst violence in Bolkovac's story was the violence done to justice"" -- this is probably close enough to interpretation that you should say "According to X,"
"with critics giving it both a positive and mixed review" -- this is a little confusing. Why is the Whitman review appended to the sentence about Metacritic. I think the standard is to use Metacritic's own words here: "The review aggregator Metacritic gave the film a 59 out of 100, indicating 'mixed or average reviews'".
Done I'm not sure why that was there, but I believe the first paragraph of the review section was already written when I started editing the article. Thanks for pointing it out. --1ST7 (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
"Other UN officials reportedly attempted to downplay the events depicted, and initiatives against trafficking in Bosnia were aborted." -- the chronology of this is a little confusing here. It sounds like the initiatives against trafficking had been cancelled before the movie's release, right?
It's a little unclear in the source: "Such was the crisis sparked by the ensuing film last year that the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, was obliged in October to stage a special screening and to pledge action. But now it emerges that senior UN officials tried to belittle the film and play it down, while the whistleblower herself warns that, for all the UN's professed resolve, 'unfortunately, the widespread horror is already there. This is not going to be simple or a quick fix.' Moreover, the UN has shut down effective anti-trafficking initiatives by its own gender affairs chief in Bosnia." I got the impression that this is most likely a reference to the initiatives promised by Ban Ki-moon in response to the film, so I'll reword it to reflect that better. --1ST7 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
You're right, that is a bit unclear. Your revision looks good to me, though I added something saying the report was from the Guardian if that's ok. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
" Following the release of The Whistleblower in theatres, it was reported that, in addition to Bosnia, peacekeepers had perpetrated human rights violations in Nigeria, Kosovo, Burundi, Sierra Leone, the Congo, Liberia, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Colombia, Guinea, and Sudan." -- It's worth mentioning that this is based on Bolkovac's own report-- "it was reported that" makes it sounds a little more verified than that. (Not that I doubt Bolkovac, but still better to be clear and neutral.)
In copyediting this article, I'm concerned about the film's (unstated) neutrality. The UN and Kosovo Force (a NATO initiative under UN mandate, for whom DynCorp recruited U.S. forces) seem to be conflated, and the foreignpolicy.com source extensively cited is a blog. If the film has an anti-UN bias (I haven't seen it), I think this should be mentioned in an article about it. Miniapolis 15:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The Foreign Policy reference is acceptable. Just because it says "blog" does not mean it is invalid. See the second paragraph of WP:UGC. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it meets WP:RS; the UN-is-bad rhetoric has a familiar ring, and if the film's producers chose to transfer blame from NATO (where it properly belongs, since the UN had withdrawn its own peacekeepers years earlier) to the UN for the sake of the U.S. market, the film is true enough to recognizable events that this should be noted in the article. In any case, that's for the FA reviewers to sort out. All the best, Miniapolis 16:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the copyedit. I personally think that source is all right (the Foreign Policy article describes it as a magazine, not a blog, and there didn't seem to be an issue during the GA review). The film is accurate in that it was the UN that was involved in this incident in the 1990s (not NATO). See here. However, I don't think the film is particularly anti-UN. It opposes immunity and urges accountability, but it doesn't paint the UN in a negative light overall.
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to copyedit the article. I appreciate it. --1ST7 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure; the subject is interesting, and I'll finish the copyedit tomorrow. Good luck with FA and all the best, Miniapolis 01:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)