Template:Did you know nominations/Lafarge scandal

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 BorgQueen (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Lafarge scandal

(

)

~~... that Lafarge, a French company, was found guilty for complicity in crimes against humanity?~~ Source: NYtimes
- Reviewed: John Harrison Stonehouse

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 12:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC). f

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 eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - not really

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: @Mhhossein: Good article however I dont feel as if the hook is all that interesting. It would probably be better to mention that the company was funding IS and Nusra. So could you make a new hook? Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Onegreatjoke. I actually meant to have it as short as possible maybe we can have it as a lead hook in the set. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I mean, you can make a hook short like that but It would probably be more beneficial to make it a bit longer. Saying that Lafarge was found guilty for crimes about humanity is somewhat interesting but if you where to mention that they were funding the Islamic State than that we be really interesting. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: Hmm...what do you think the following?

Alt 1:~~... that Lafarge, a French company, was found guilty for complicity in crimes against humanity for making payment to the terrorist groups Islamic State of Iraq and Levant and al-Nusra Front?~~

--Mhhossein ^talk 11:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You could probably just say that Lafarge was found to have funded IS for your hook but I think this is fine. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke and Mhhossein: The NY Times article says "complicit in war crimes", which is not quite the same as "crimes against humanity". Our own Crimes against humanity draws a distinction between the two. We either need a source which explicitly uses the term "crimes against humanity", or change the wording of the hook to follow what the existing source says. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for bringing this issue to our eyes. Can you take a look at this one and this one please? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Those work, thanks. Could you add one of them to the France Supreme Court ruling section where you first mention crimes against humanity? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome Roy, please see if my recent edit matches your demand. Also, do you have any suggestion for the hook itself? This source writes that Lafarge is the first French firm being "tried in connection to crimes against humanity." Can it be more interesting do you think (also asking the opinion of @Onegreatjoke) ?--Mhhossein ^talk 05:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

restoring tick -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
questions raised at WP:ERROR regarding whether Lafarge was convicted or just charged. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

RoySmith:Will the following hook resolve the issue:

Alt 2:... that Lafarge, a French company, was charged with complicity in crimes against humanity for making payment to the terrorist groups including Islamic State of Iraq and Levant?

Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

That looks better to me, but given the history here I'd prefer to leave this for somebody else to take a look at to make sure we get it right this time. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment: A part of this that's more interesting (to me) is that the company has pleaded guilty to the crime of conspiracy to provide material support to one or more foreign terrorist organizations when it provided $6 million in cash to ISIS. I propose:
Alt 3: ... that Lafarge, a France-based manufacturing company, admitted to illegally providing over $5.92 million in funding to ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front?
— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal, but it does not include the 'crime against humanity' which had been the topic of the most recent legal cases. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

May I offer alt4 ... that the first French company to be found guilty of crimes against humanity was a cement manufacturer?
or alt5 ... the the world's biggest cement manufacturer has been complicit in crimes against humanity? – the left field-ness of these is quite interesting to me. Alt5 would require adding Lafarge's size to the target article. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Another reviewer is invited to take a look at this nomination. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Marking for closure. The nomination has been sitting since November 28 after already being pulled. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping RoySmith. Could I ask you review the nomination plz? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  - I'm going to respectfully decline. As has been discussed at length on WT:DYK, we're swimming in more nominations than we can handle and need to start being more selective about quality. This one has had its chance and we can't afford to keep investing more time in it when there's so many other nominations that need attention. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    - Thanks RoySmith. Fair enough. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)