Talk:The Problems of Genocide

Did you know nomination

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: promoted by SL93 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

* ... that in a 2021 book, Dirk Moses argues that the concept of genocide as the "crime of crimes" "blinds us to other types of humanly caused civilian death"?

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Illusion of explanatory depth ‎

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 05:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC).

• I'd like to review this one.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: new enough, long enough, copyvio unlikely, the hook on DYK is unsourced. Is the source for hook in the article (Moses p.1) correct? Why not write the complete name of the book, is Genocide too repetitive? Or how about ...that in a book of 21, the Australian historian/Genocide scholar A. Dirk Moses...I mean not everyone knows who A. Dirk Moses is. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. Yes, indeed the hook is backed up by the cited source. Here is a proposed alternative:

*ALT0a ... that historian Dirk Moses argues that The Problems of Genocide include "blinding us to other types of humanly caused civilian death"? (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for ALT0a. First. Hook is good to go. But, there is one phrase, that unsourced I feel uncomfortable with. That Bartov and other historians accused Moses of promoting the conspiracy theory of Genocide being a "jewish-zionist plot" I couldn't find a source for it. I read the Fair Observer article and also listened a bit on what they discuss at the Einstein Forum, I saw Bartov using the "Jewish Zionist plot", and historians using the conspiracy theory, but Bartov I didn't see using the conspiracy theory nor the historians using Jewish-Zionist plot. How about a separate phrase for each expression (by Bartov and the historians)?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Great catch! Now fixed. Bartov didn't mention this aspect in his review so I omitted the mention of him. (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you, but it was still unsourced. This time the invention (only used by Bartov in source 1, but without the conspiracy theory) was the problem. I worded it differently now and sourced it. Do you agree with that one?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to your version. (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: has one of the hooks above been approved? If so, can you re-add a tick below, so prep builders know that this is ready for promotion? If this is not approved, can you outline your concerns below? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't notice I was supposed to add a second tick. ALT0a approved. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

1 August 2022

This entry seems to me like an attempt of self-promotion by the author. The fact that the book was reviewed by a couple of magazines does not merit a separate entry on wikipedia. I suggest deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clausewitz1807 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think this article deserves to be deleted, you may nominate it through the Articles for Deletion process. QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)