September 1983 Laws is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by FuzzyMagma ( talk) at 12:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: Sharia laws in Sudan |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
September 1983 Laws article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of National Reconciliation (Sudan) was copied or moved into September 1983 Laws with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by
BlueMoonset
talk
06:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Closing as abandoned after being pulled due to the issues noted below and issues still outstanding weeks later
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.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
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)
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.
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.
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.
MOS:EDITORIAL|falsely]]" (or editorialising)
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.
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)
the material copied from another articleas attribution was given in this . Fixed NPOV and the hook as suggested (see below)
@ 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)
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?
Appreciate your thoughts whenever you put 'em in :)" !!! What is going on here!!!
@ Vaticidalprophet you are right to the hook. 1985 is when the coup happened and the law was deactivated. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 08:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
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)
@
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)