Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Zaria Shia Massacre


 * 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 Allen3 talk 16:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Insufficient recent expansion

2015 Zaria Shia Massacre

 * ... that in December 2015, human rights activists accused Nigeria's military of killing up to 1,000 Shia Muslims in just three days?


 * ALT1:... that Nigerian military secretly buried hundreds of bodies in mass graves after it stormed the house of top Nigerian Shia cleric Ibrahim Zakzaky?
 * Reviewed: Shooting of Jamar Clark

Created by Salatiwiki (talk). Nominated by Mhhossein (talk) at 16:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg - I have re-worded the hook so it makes more sense; long enough, interesting, properly cited, QPQ done - good to go. GiantSnowman 20:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I'm not sure how neutral this hook is. On the one hand Nigeria's military are saying only a few are killed and "human rights activists" are claiming up to a thousand. There's no detail on who the human rights activists are. This is perhaps the most notable fact on it. Maybe a hook representing both sides to the story could be helpful?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So we can have the ALT1. Mhhossein (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is much worse. There is no attempt at balancing both sides of the story. Islamic Human Rights Commission is hardly an unbiased source of information.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  05:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of claims appeared in media through Islamic Movement in Niger, the first souce was "Chidi Odinkalu" of the Nigerian Human Rights Commission then second was the Islamic Human Rights Commission. Also Amnesty International demanded investigation.  Nannadeem (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The original is neutral enough for me. ALT1 is not great. GiantSnowman 20:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have got no problem with the original hook. But how do you find ALT1 non-neutral. Mhhossein (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What happened in the Zaria Shia "Massacre" is highly disputed and there are clearly two arguments being disputed, one by the Nigerian army and one by the Shia population. To take the most extreme overestimate of the number of deaths makes Wikipedia look like it's taking sides of the Shia. A BBC report I was reading today on the topic had the following comments: "A Human Rights Watch report said the Nigeria's army version of events "does not stack up" and says at least 300 people were killed, many of them buried in mass graves." and "Following the crackdown, the IMN says that more than 700 of its members are missing - either dead or detained." The 1,000 figure is best kept to tabloid journalism and not for the Main Page of an encyclopedia. The claim about the secret graves is not only from Islamic Human Rights Commission, but it's being reported by Press TV, which is an Iranian news service likely to have bias interests in Shia muslims. I will respect any consensus that forms on the matter, but wanted to put these comments out there for any closing reviewed to see.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes this is the case, most of the crimes either by the State or Org remain claims and counter claims. Nevertheless, it would be appropriat to cover it by figuring as from 700 to 1000. Nannadeem (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The 700 figures is for both dead and detained people. Maybe 300–1,000 would be a more accurate estimate?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I searched through the sources (such as the BBC article) and I can say that "300–1,000" is more accurate, as Jolly said. By the way, I found some other sources mentioning the secret burial ( and ). Mhhossein (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, this source also supports the allegation of secret burial by Nigerian Army. The source says:"The sect's version of events gained credibility last Wednesday when a damning report released by Human Rights Watch (HRW) stated that at least 300 Shiite members were killed during the crackdown and their bodies buried secretly by soldiers in a bid to cover up the atrocities committed by the military." --Mhhossein (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good, these news articles all come from the Human Rights Watch, which is independent and neutral. As so many sources are going with HRW's figure of "at least 300" maybe we should just go with that number and forget the 1,000 figure completely? It seems to be an outlier. Also, "in just three days" is weasely and we need to specify exactly who (and wikilink) these "human rights activists" are in the blurb.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that " HRW human rights activists accused the Nigerian Army of killing up to thousands" is well sourced! Mhhossein (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The claim is speculative at best "Human rights activists said hundreds upon hundreds, perhaps as many as 1,000, have been killed." I offered a more moderate estimate which is widely attributed by news sources, which would have got this nomination a tick from me. As a result this will be my final comment on this nomination and you should seek a new reviewer.  Jolly   Ω   Janner  07:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think yours first estimation in response to my figures is the best option. Beyond this I am afraid of filtration which does not encompass balancing.   Nannadeem (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not objecting 300-1000, too. Mhhossein (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein can we request BlueMoonset for review afresh? (with or without new ALT?) Nannadeem (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nannadeem: Certainly. Mhhossein (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested (not me, sorry) for this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Current hook is a no-go as HRW and Amnesty International, the two most trusted sources for this event on human rights violations, have not supported the claim that it was anywhere close to 1,000 yet. If "at least 300" was used in the hook I would be willing to revisit this review... but for now this isn't going to work. (the current hooks also need their links updated to the actual article as it's been moved twice apparently) &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I was just looking at the original review, and noticed that it hadn't mentioned close paraphrasing or neutrality. Neutrality was later brought up as it affected the hooks, but not the possibility of copyvios or the like, so I ran Earwig's detector. The results were alarming. Two of the sources, FN10 and FN11, were at over 75%, and many paragraphs appeared identical between each source and the article. In part this is because the same article can appear under multiple sources; for example FN11 is the same source material as FN3, FN25, and FN26: the same Associated Press story also published by ABC and CBC (though one CBC is mistakenly called CBS in the ref). But that's no excuse for copying, and that's what's happened. Using the AP story as an example, the fourth paragraph under Casualties is copied (but not quoted) from this AP article, as is the fourth paragraph of the lede, and many others. Returning to FN10, virtually the entire second paragraph of the Rebuttal of the army's claim by human rights organizations subsection is copied from it. And the IMN narrative section lifts material from FN9. Given how much copying has been done, I don't see how this can qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset: Sorry, although I've not done contributions to this article, I had to check it against copy right criteria before nomination. Thanks for checking this. Does it have any chances to be moved on after the copy vio parts are removed? Mhhossein (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've cut 95% of the article's readable prose in order to deal with the copyright issues here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg The article is now 1051 prose characters, far too short, and neither of the hooks is supported by what is left in the article after the copyright issues have been addressed. Mhhossein, this is already the oldest extant DYK nomination; it's time to close it as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset: I've no objection if you think there's no way to revive it. Mhhossein (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)