Talk:September 1983 Laws

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: rejected by reviewer, closed by BlueMoonset talk 06:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as abandoned after being pulled due to the issues noted below and issues still outstanding weeks later

(
)
Sudanese man holding his residual arm after amputation
Sudanese man holding his residual arm after amputation

Created by FuzzyMagma (talk). Self-nominated at 20:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/September 1983 Laws; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: All issues with NPOV were resolved. Material copied from a public domain source is properly attributed. The material copied from another article is only a few hundred bytes. Rjjiii (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Updated 06:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:NPOV, I see several issues:

  • "symbolically disposing of alcohol" can read as if symbolically also applies to "implementing hudud punishments like public amputations". Consider moving the alcohol disposal into a separate sentence or rephrasing.
Done
Done
  • "reflecting a failure to accommodate minority rights and leverage Islam's rejection of racism" could read as being about the condition, the agreement, or self-governance. Consider breaking this into a separate sentence.
could not paraphrase so removed it.
  • "Nimeiry attributed Sudan's economic success to the zakat and taxation act..." Did Sudan have economic success at this time, or did he falsely claim that Sudan did? I would consider removing this sentence unless there is more context. The next few sentences go into much detail on how the economy suffered.
I changed the sentence structure to put the Nimeiry's claims and facts back to back without the need to use "[[

MOS:EDITORIAL|falsely]]" (or editorialising)

  • The source says that the 1983 conflict resulted from "Southerners' disappointment with the regime's failure to fulfill the Addis Ababa accords, especially regarding economic development and the issue of the discovery of oil in the south that would be refined in and exported from the north." The way it's worded in the article here does not make the causes behind "end of the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972" clear and could to imply that the conflict caused the agreement to fail when I think the source is saying that it happened because the agreement had already failed.
reworded

The authorship of the photo is detailed in the link. Sudan's photograph laws summarized here:[1]

Mostly the article is fantastic and compliant with DYK rules. I wrote a lot about the NPOV issues, but I think they are all easy to fix. I also think the sentences in the "Southern Sudan" section will be easy to paraphrase. Thanks for doing an article on this; I think this will be the first exposure many readers will have to the tragedy. Let me know if you have questions, or let me know when the article is ready, Rjjiii (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: Thanks for the detailed review. plagiarism and close paraphrasing does not apply to free text. Hover over ref.13 and you can see the tag for attribution as per Wikipedia:Public domain. same think applies to the material copied from another article as attribution was given in this edit. Fixed NPOV and the hook as suggested (see below)
@FuzzyMagma: It's no problem. Thank you for the thorough explanation. You are 100% correct. Public domain content can be used on Wikipedia, it is attributed in the citation, and the book is a public domain text as it was written for and published by the GPO.[2] I was, it seems, momentarily illiterate when looking at the source. I no longer see any potential NPOV issues. The ALT1 hook is supported by the source, and it's interesting. Let me know which article you do a QPQ on, and I will go ahead and pass this. Rjjiii (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii: QPQ done FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: Thanks, Rjjiii (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: you don’t need to change or delete the discussion or your previous comments, just indicate at the end that you are happy with fix by using {{subst:DYKtick}}. The closing admin or the admin at the prep area normally take a glance to understand what happened before deciding to include the nom or not.

Per this discussion, I've pulled this hook. It is up to FuzzyMagma whether they want to continue paraphrasing to make the text new, or to withdraw this nomination. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The matching text is already less than one-fifth of the total prose size as you can find here so WP:DYKSPLIT does not apply unless the prose length is less than 1,500 characters which is not. Most of the matched text are phrases like "the Sudanese Brotherhood" or "the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement". Can you please indicate if a reviewer is needed or not? FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
dying, the rephrasing done so far might work – what do you think? also, if you want to bring up your other issues with this nomination, now might be the time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my understanding of wp:dyksplit is that, if eligibility is based on the fivefold expansion criterion, the calculation is based on what was present in the nominated article at the time it was created in mainspace, as suggested by wp:dyk5x: "This calculation is made from the last version of the article before the expansion began, even if text from the original was deleted in the process". to me, this makes sense, because otherwise, anyone running afoul of wp:dyksplit (or wp:dyk5x) could easily launder their article by simply paraphrasing the copied material after the issue is pointed out to them. admittedly, though, i've never violated wp:dyksplit myself, so i may not be correctly understanding its finer points.
i can raise the other issues as well, but they may take some time to type up. i'll try to have something in a few days. dying (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought, dying, but in the end, I think that strict an interpretation doesn't really improve anyone's experience – if someone submits a 4x expansion, we'll give them time to bump it up to five. Appreciate your thoughts whenever you put 'em in :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"because otherwise, anyone running afoul of wp:dyksplit (or wp:dyk5x) could easily launder their article by simply paraphrasing the copied material after the issue is pointed out to them." you don’t see a problem with this statement? really what is going on here?! And are you thanking him for insulting another editor?! This is becoming absurd. I say a word and you call it “personal attack” and "stick" and they slander my work and my personality and you have no problem with that! you actually quick to clap! How am I to edit Wikipedia if I get to be attacked this way while an admin is clapping?
for both of you, what is the issue are you talking about? This editor started with similarity with a different article (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#september 1983 laws if you forgot), the moment I pointed out the problem with their argument, they ran to a different one and third one and until they landed on this, then you both clinched to to the similarity between Islamism in Sudan and September 1983 Laws articles while both of you just ignored completely that I copied the material when I was was making National reconciliation (Sudan). I ignored all that and just let the whole thing slide to close this, even when you pulled the article, But for some reason embolden the same editor who just thought they can actually continue to disrespect me this way with an admin "Appreciate your thoughts whenever you put 'em in :)" !!! What is going on here!!!
saying that you cannot amend or change an article after nomination is grossly false as the whole process was meant to improve article by having someone to review them. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron and Dying: I have a few questions from all the text above. [1] Are all the issues DYK-specific and regarding dates? I don't see any issues with copyright violations, plagiarism, or broader Wikipedia policies. [2] Is the reason for pulling the DYK this diff [3] where the unpublished draft was used to flesh out an existing article? [3] And if so, how has DYK handled that kind of situation in the past? Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii: The nature of the dispute involves copying within Wikipedia: not question of copyright, but of newness. Articles submitted to DYK have to be new, and they're not new if they're substantially copied from articles. In this case, the text was copied to a different mainspace article by FuzzyMagma on August 31, and then recycled to this article on October 20. That makes the text over seven days old at the time of nomination, and therefore not new (at least, that's my current grasp of it). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, i agree, theleekycauldron. i am happy to be lenient if an expansion was only fourfold, but once you also take into account the text copied from the "Sudanese Greeks" article (earwig comparison here) and the "Legal system of Sudan" article (earwig comparison here) as well as the public domain text (earwig comparison here) that i hadn't even mentioned before to avoid complicating things, i had felt that turning a blind eye to this would have been shirking responsibility.
in any case, i had thought that raising wp:dyksplit was the cleaner option, but it looks like my hand has been forced. i have posted more about my findings at wt:dyk, as the issue is not just present in this nomination. thanks for being patient with me. dying (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was pulled from prep over three weeks ago, and while it wasn't retranscluded, FuzzyMagma had plenty of time to post here even before they decided to take a break after the recent discussion at ANI. Since they haven't, I'm treating this as an abandoned nomination, and closing it. This decision can always be appealed at WT:DYK, but should be done so in the next seven days. Otherwise, once the article is fully cleaned up and successfully goes through GAN, it can be renominated for DYK at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

@Vaticidalprophet you are right to edit the hook. 1985 is when the coup happened and the law was deactivated. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet can you make "between" rather than "from" at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6 FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two points[edit]

He claimed a reduction of crime by over 40% within a year due to the new punishments.

1. I think it's safe to say this statement is likely bogus, given the data deficiencies and difficulty of supporting such a claim. Even in the most advanced democracies in the world, it would take far longer than a year to show such a reduction occurred.

2. The article doesn't really go into the ramifications of such amputations. In all likelihood, amputations leading to any so-called "reduction" in crime leads to more poverty and economic destabilization, because you now have a percentage of the population who can't do needed manual labor with two hands. This really needs more independent analysis going forward, because the idea that this leads to a "reduction" in crime and helps society has no rational basis. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two excellent points. I (think I) fixed the 1st one and will look to sources for the 2nd one. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment[edit]

@FuzzyMagma: Thanks for the article. Capital punishment usually means executions, but this article seems to mention it a few times without that meaning. Does "capital punishment of amputation" involve killing the prisoner at the end or is it just used as an alternative word for hudud? Sdrqaz (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no it does not. It is called Hudud in Islam but I thought Capital punishment may relate the meaning to non muslims readers. please feel free to rephrase it as I think you will be better positioned to make the article more inclusive. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_1983_Laws&oldid=1201687274"