Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Labour in Nepal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Yoninah (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Labour in Nepal

(
)
  • Reviewed: QPQ exempt: 2 DYK credits

Created by Usedtobecool (talk). Self-nominated at 18:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC).

  •  Reviewing... DTM (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, before I proceed with other aspects of the DYK review, the article needs some basic changes - please fix the headings - Women in the workforce is an empty level 2 heading. Under the history section three headings are empty, please remove them if there is no information to add just now.
There are also some unreferenced lines in the article as well as a citation needed template. Please address those. I would also suggest making the history of labour laws into one paragraphs for lack of content. DTM (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, thank you for your consideration. I was not expecting it to get reviewed so soon (took/has-taken many weeks for my previous noms). I think I have addressed your preliminary concerns. I will be formatting all citations within the next day or two. Should otherwise be ready for the rest of the review. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 19:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Article created on 18 Nov and nominated within the required seven days time period on 24 Nov. It is long enough and passes a check through the earwigs copyvio detector. It also fulfils other basic policy requirements and is reasonably sourced.
As far as hook policy goes, considering 4a - "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals...should be avoided", even if this is for individuals and not for a nation as a whole, I do not think that the hook or the article is focusing unduly on the negative aspects of the topic. Though I have to note a line in the reference used "many former kamlaris have ended up worse off than when they were slaves," so the usage of the word "slave" is misleading to a very small degree but understandable in the larger context.
The paraphrasing of the hook references also seems ok - "For generations, Tharu girls as young as six were sold or given away by their families...". This paraphrasing is ok in my opinion and takes reference to the larger "Kamaiya-kamalari system". Also the word "auctioned" as been used in the hook, though not directly used in the reference. Considering what the source says this is also a reasonably ok - "Almost every year over the next decade, her parents would sell her again and again to wealthy landowner families...Prospective employers would haggle... over contracts, fees and requirements."
QPQ not required. DTM (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan and Usedtobecool: A small comment and request for clarification here. The hook at present is somewhat sensationalist, it is not just any girl that has been subject to this practice, but a very specific set, related to class, gender and caste discrimination. Could the hook rather state (also correcting for style): ... that as recently as 2013, girls as young as six from landless families were auctioned each year as slave labour in Nepal? thanks Goldsztajn (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Goldsztajn, I don't like the fact that "as sth as" is repeated one after the other in your suggestion, and "were auctioned each year as slave labour" doesn't sound right to me, but, I think we could incorporate "landless families" in there to make it more specific. I didn't originally consider it, because I think the very fact that it's the parents doing the selling, would make it obvious that it was done by extremely poor families. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 17:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I am done fixing the citations.Can I continue expanding and reorganising the content, or do I leave it as is between the time it is approved and the time it gets to the main page? Thanks! Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 17:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
... that as recently as 2013, girls of six and above from landless families were auctioned each year to be slave labour in Nepal? Goldsztajn (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
FWIW - there's lots of poor people in Nepal who *don't* sell their daughters into bonded labour... poverty per se is not the issue here, that's why I think it is very important to specify the conditions under which this discrimination/exploitation occurs.Goldsztajn (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: forgot to add - keep editing if you can. I will make some comments on the talk page - there's lots to do!--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, I am not cutting ALT0, but as per Goldsztajn's comments, I would suggest putting down an alternative hook or two. DTM (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that as recently as 2013, girls of six and above from landless families were auctioned each year to be slave labour in Nepal?
  • ALT2 : ... that as recently as 2013, under the Kamalari system, girls as young as six from landless families were auctioned each year to be slave labour in Nepal? (I'm responsible for this, so helping to speed up - of course, usedtobecool should approve, critque, add another etc).--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, do you have any alternative hooks to put forward?
Goldsztajn, have the suggestions and issues with the article that you have pointed out been addressed, at least good enough to pass a DYK? Would you mind going ahead and making some of the changes? (I am sure you are aware that the criteria for the article to pass DYK as compared to other GA criteria is much less, but yes that is no reason to be lax)
I will give this review a pause for sometime so that everyone can calmly sort out the issues and then accordingly we can proceed. DTM (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, I still don't see the problem with ALT0. It's not clickbait, it's an accurate representation of what's in the article and the sources. ALT2 is fine by me, too. I have looked at Goldsztajn's suggestions for improvements and I don't see it as them suggesting that those are urgent enough to put the DYK on hold. I think they're interested in the subject, and therefore are suggesting improvements for what the article can be. I am myself currently researching organised/unorganised labour situation in Nepal to build individual sections for those aspects. I agree the article needs a lot of work, but that's exactly why it's a start class article. They've commented above that they're trying to help speed up things, not put them on hold. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 09:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: As Usedtobecool said, I'm only trying to help with improvement of the article in general, sorry if I wasn't clear, no reason at all to hold up this DYK, GTG for me with the amendments to the hook.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations everyone and help in the DYK nom. Article gtg from my side with three hooks ALT0, ALT1, ALT2. Although there was some confusion regarding ALT0, it seems ok to me and is sourced and mentioned in the article; but ALT1 has been provided as a direct replacement to ALT0; and ALT2 is also there, also considered fine by the DYK nominator. DTM (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but the way the hook is worded, tacking "slave" onto a traditional "Labour in XYZ" page, is disingenuous. It makes me wonder why the page isn't called Slave labour in Nepal. Please formulate a hook that either uses "labour in Nepal" as is, with an additional factoid about slave labor, or pipe the link. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, Usedtobecool, Goldsztajn : How about we just remove the word 'slave' from the hooks.

  • ALT0.1 ... that girls as young as six used to be annually auctioned off as labour in Nepal, as recently as 2013?
  • ALT1.1: ... that as recently as 2013, girls of six and above from landless families were auctionedsold each year as labour in Nepal?
  • ALT2.1: ... that as recently as 2013, under the Kamalari system, girls as young as six from landless families were auctioned each year to be labour in Nepal?
Does that solve the problem? DTM (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Restoring tick for ALT 1.1. The source does not say "auctioned", but "sold", so I made the change in the hook being promoted. Yoninah (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Labour_in_Nepal&oldid=933027414"