Template:Did you know nominations/International Criminal Court investigation in Mali

International Criminal Court investigation in Mali

 * ... that the government of Mali convinced the International Criminal Court (logo pictured) to investigate war crimes in Mali itself?
 * ALT1:... that the government of Mali convinced the International Criminal Court (logo pictured) to investigate war crimes in Mali?
 * ALT2:... that the government of Mali convinced the International Criminal Court (logo pictured) to investigate war crimes in Mali itself?
 * Reviewed: Welfare in South Korea
 * Comment: I have arguments against each of these three wordings. The original hook could be interpreted as "itself" applying to the ICC, i.e. that it is unusual for the "ICC itself" to investigate war crimes directly - which would be false. ALT1 sounds a little awkward - it sounds like maybe there's a word that accidentally got dropped. ALT2 probably sounds best to me, but it doesn't quite follow link convention - "itself" doesn't make much sense in the title of the article, so some people might be unhappy. But any of the three would be fine by me, unless someone can find a better wording. Boud (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Created by Boud (talk). Self nom at 01:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think a better sentence would be "... that the International Criminal Court (logo pictured) is conducting an investigation into alleged war crimes in Mali?" I think that the use of the word "convinced" is not appropriate as the referral is simply a legal matter that involves no persuasion or lobbying. – Zntrip 22:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Malian government presented evidence for its case - the ICC was not obliged to agree to the referral. That's the sense in which I suggested "convinced". In a prosecution+defence legal situation (not yet this case), the prosecution and defence lawyers both try to convince the jury and/or judge (in principle, only using evidence and rational arguments), don't they? On the other hand, I tend to agree that "convinced" could be misinterpreted, since without more info, the reader doesn't know what the method of convincing was - s/he might think that the Malian government didn't have a legal right to refer itself to the ICC. Still, IMHO it's important and interesting information that it's the Mali government itself that called for the investigation. There are plenty of people who claim that the ICC is a tool of the West and are wondering whether the French intervention should be considered colonialism or not. The fact that Mali referred itself to the ICC is a solid fact for people interested in these questions. Your wording avoids the problems in my three suggestions, but I don't see any elegant, compact way of adding the info that it was the Malian government itself that made the referral.
 * For structuring the discussion, I'll put your suggestion as ALT3. A review (new, long enough, within policy?) is still needed. Boud (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT3:... that the International Criminal Court (logo pictured) is conducting an investigation into alleged war crimes in Mali?


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Full review of article and hooks needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Date and length fine, however the hook is sourced in the article by the ICC itself to which I hesitate to clear this per WP:SOURCES. Is it possible to find a 3rd party source to be used to directly reference the hook in the article.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Third party references (human rights NGOs) added. How's that? Boud (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go to ALT3 then.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)