Template:Did you know nominations/Human rights in Guinea

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 PumpkinSky talk 03:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Human rights in Guinea

(

)

... that human rights issues in Guinea include female genital mutilation, which has been performed on 96% of women?

Reviewed: This is my fourth DYK submission.

Created/expanded by PhnomPencil (talk). Self nom at 21:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaning accept, with caution. The text looks long and new. Hook content sources to [1] which cites "a 2005 Demographic and Health Survey". Provided the U.S. government is a reliable source here - which I'll assume but is potentially questionable - this checks. It is definitely interesting and surprising. The source also clarifies that this is nominally illegal (despite universal lack of prosecution) so it is an issue, and not unduly negative. Hook under 150 characters even counting everything.

Paraphrasing might be an issue - article says "Despite being illegal, female genital mutilation is widely practiced by all ethnic groups: studies have shown that 96% of women have gone through the operation. Prosecutions of its practitioners are nonexistent." Source says "In practice FGM was practiced widely in all regions among all religious and ethnic groups, primarily on girls between the ages of four and 17. Infibulation, the most dangerous form of FGM, was rarely performed. CPTAFE reported high rates of infant and maternal mortality due to FGM. According to a 2005 Demographic and Health Survey, 96 percent of women in the country had undergone the procedure." That's starting to stray into troubled waters; I'll leave this part to a second opinion. Personally I think Wikipedia's format should have a pretty high tolerance for this sort of thing - personally what bothers me is that a study became "studies", which I think lends unwarranted credibility to the conclusion. Wnt (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV has heightened importance in this series of articles, and it's good to always include who's reporting these statistics within the prose itself. I don't think there's really space to do that with this fact though, and I now understand why "alternative hooks" are important, haha. Here's one for you:

ALT1: ... that past human rights issues in Guinea include the black diet, a total lack of food and water which killed prisoners at Camp Boiro?

The above hook's fact also relies upon reports, but this time there's no exact figure, like "96%", which could be off by a small amount. Instead it's just stating that something happened. Something a little more morbid than I'd usually like, yes, but interesting... I was surprised to read about this when writing the article. PhnomPencil (✉) 14:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs a new review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem pointed out above has been corrected. I have started or expanded some articles in this area and they are fully consistent with this rather depressing article. I fixed the caption to the picture of Loffo Camara. She did not survive Camp Boiro. I am not sure she was imprisoned there. But she was shot. A spot check of other sources shows no copyvio concern. New enough, long enough, ALT1 is sourced and is my preference. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)