Template:Did you know nominations/Utilitarian 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: promoted by Allen3 talk 20:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Utilitarian genocide[edit]
- ... that utilitarian genocide was defined in 1975 by genocide scholar Vahakn Dadrian?
Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nominated at 11:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC).
I enjoyed reading this article. 1590+ characters. New enough. Sources checked and reliable. GTG. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Article is too short. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: according to DYKcheck, the article has 1409 prose characters, below the 1500 minimum required. (Text in footnotes and references does not count.) Also, the hook shouldn't capitalize "Utilitarian", since it is not capitalized in normal English sentences when it's in the middle of the sentence. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- 1652 according to this? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Needs new review now that article has been expanded and meets the minimum length requirement. I've fixed the hook so "utilitarian" is lowercase, however, the year of its definition is not an interesting hook in my opinion, so I recommend coming up with an ALT hook that is. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hook is not changing, if people are interested in genocide then this is the right hook, if not then fuck em. Darkness Shines (talk)
- The hook looks okay to me, but is the term itself widely accepted in academia? Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Could you provide some evidence for that please? Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- [1] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, that looks sufficient at a glance, though I note Dadrian appears to be not the only academic with a claim to inventing the term. I also have some reservations about whether or not it's best to treat a topic like this separately, but that's a discussion that may be beyond the scope of this process. I will take another look over the article shortly before registering a further opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Before we go any further, I note that the footnote is a direct quote from source and thus should be in quotation marks and include a cite - unfortunately I'm not that familiar with the sfn template and can't do this for you. Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is ref one, which is directly after the note? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but the footnote needs to be in quotes and the cite should be embedded in the footnote itself. Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do not know how to do that, nor do I care. Quotation marks were added, it has a citation right after it so that is good enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not good enough, because the cite has to be directly after the quote in the footnote, you can't expect the reader to understand that the quote in the footnote originates from a cite listed in another section altogether. Anyhow, as it happens I think I've managed to fix it, using Template:efn, so I will continue the review of the article shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do not know how to do that, nor do I care. Quotation marks were added, it has a citation right after it so that is good enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but the footnote needs to be in quotes and the cite should be embedded in the footnote itself. Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is ref one, which is directly after the note? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- [1] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Could you provide some evidence for that please? Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- The hook looks okay to me, but is the term itself widely accepted in academia? Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hook is not changing, if people are interested in genocide then this is the right hook, if not then fuck em. Darkness Shines (talk)
I have taken a thorough look at this article and only found it necessary to make one small change, if the nominator has no objection to that, I see no further impediment to promotion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- What change? BTW, thank you for the fix on the cite. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- This change. Gatoclass (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- This change. Gatoclass (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Article is long enough, new enough, and contains no copyvios or close paraphrasing. One reviewer was unimpressed with the provided hook but as the nominator clearly wants to retain it and both I and the original reviewer think it acceptable, I think it can probably be considered acceptable (I personally think the hook is of interest since it demonstrates that genocide definitions continue to evolve). I'm still not convinced that a standalone article is the best way to tackle this topic - certainly I can see the case for a Typologies of genocide article - but as I said earlier, that is a debate that is probably beyond the scope of DYK. In short I see no reason to hold up this nomination any longer. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)