Template:Did you know nominations/Human rights movement

Human rights movement

 * ... that while the roots of the international human rights movement are about a century old, it grew in global significance around the 1970s?
 * Reviewed: Ōtsu, Shiga

Created/expanded by Piotrus (talk). Self nom at 00:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg important topic, covered well with mainly one source, also good for the hook. Spotchecks found no close paraphrasing. I suggest to simplify the referencing, to mention the book details only once and have just the specific page(s) in the ref. For an example see Franz Kafka. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Removed from Queue 1. See WT:Did you know. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  04:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there; I don't see a valid ground for this to have been pulled. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing has happened here since the article was pulled back, and the discussion on the talk page ground to a halt over a week ago. I'm hoping to get this moving again. The objections were made by groupuscle and Gatoclass, the latter of whom pulled the article out of the queue. My apologies if I don't summarize this as well as it deserves, but the arguments they made there seemed to be:
 * the article "mostly recapitulates" what was already in the pre-existing human rights article
 * If somebody really thinks this is a fork, AFD it. Otherwise, move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the article is "lopsided" (perhaps so described because of its reliance on a single source?)
 * The article uses more source, and nobody has even suggested what other sources to use. In any case, this is not an issue for a start-class article; --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * hook issues include these phrases
 * "roots are ... about a century old" — this is said to be unsourced, and the actual period of time "a lot older or a little younger"
 * "global significance" — this is said to have increased most every decade starting in the 1930s, not just around the 1970s, the implication being that singling out the '70s is not appropriate
 * The obvious question: where do we go from here. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above are minor issue that should not affect a start-class article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My issue with this article is that it mostly justs repeats information already found in the Human rights article - which means the content is not actually new to the encyclopedia and is redundant. Since I made that assessment, barely any changes to the article have been made. I will take a closer look at the article in the next day or two, but I doubt I will be coming to a different conclusion. Gatoclass (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * However, the article does not use the same text. The topic is similar, but since the text is different, it doesn't matter for the DYK. You either should AFD it as an unnecessary fork, or withdraw your argument as a DYK criticism, since there is no reason to argue the article is not based on new content, not within the DYK understanding of what constitutes new text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, all. The reason I objected to this article, in particular, was that it presented such a limited view of such a huge topic. And not just any kind of limited view, but one which really excluded crucial contributions from the African diaspora. This seemed like an unacceptable omission for an article on human rights movement(s). The additions I made at that time made a little progress towards resolving that concern. Setting aside issues of 'DYK theory', I will see if I can make any useful contributions tonight. I'd invite any one else who's interested to look into the topic also! Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * DYKs, being start-class articles like this one are not required to be comprehensive. This is a DYK review, not a Good Article review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, I appreciate your expansion, and I think you should be added as a co-author to this nom. However, please note that I stand by my above critique of your prior objections (DYKs do not have to provide a comprehensive treatment). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Piotrus. I had no hostile intent and I didn't mean to interfere with you. While some of the DYK topics are small and can be covered reasonably well with short articles, "human rights movement" is so big that I felt the article needed to be more thorough before running on the front page. I think it's improved now, although of course there's plenty more to be done. All's well that ends well, eh? Peace, groupuscule (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg peace, if you ask me, thanks for the improvements, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)