Talk:Kenyan court fines four men for queen ant trafficking

Notes

Okay, this is a very niche story, but I still think it is sufficiently newsworthy. I'm working on this article since yesterday (I'm a bit slow!):

• The AFP article (republished by France 24) states that the teenagers are 18-years-old, but most other sources (including those not used in this article) state they are 19. I believe that it was error on AFP's part and I used the dominant age;
• Several sources note the emerging trend of trafficking smaller species, but they do not expand upon that trend.

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4856142 [Passed]

Revision 4856142 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: verified 5W, except i think based on sources court ordered 'pay money OR one year in prison', yet first paragraph reads 'pay money or if you cannot pay it then one year in prison'. is the one year in prison a part of choices offered by court order? or is this a standard penalty for unable to pay money requested by court? The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4856142 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: verified 5W, except i think based on sources court ordered 'pay money OR one year in prison', yet first paragraph reads 'pay money or if you cannot pay it then one year in prison'. is the one year in prison a part of choices offered by court order? or is this a standard penalty for unable to pay money requested by court? The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Hi Dsuke1998AEOS

Hi @Dsuke1998AEOS

Thanks for sharing the story. Please see notes above.

Would you like to continue being in the {{pingrr}} revision requests working group?

Regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Yes, I intend to perform one or two revision requests today. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

thanks a lot! could you please check review feedback above. it contains one question about confusing sentence. Gryllida (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this new wording better, Gryllida? The AFP article suggests that the one-year prison sentence is more of a consequence than an option. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

They "could" face a prison sentence of one year, then. As this would need to be written by a next Judge at a next court hearing. Just a thought. I approved the edit for now as it is a reasonable clarification and it improves the text. Gryllida (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Dsuke1998AEOS, @Gryllida, the LA Times, BBC, Reuters, and France24 all frame it as an either/or sentence: pay the fine or go to prison. On that basis, "would" is the more accurate word.

The phrase "If they refused to pay it..." is misleading. Prison would be enforced if they failed to pay, regardless of the reason. None of the sources suggest the ruling depends on why the money isn’t paid.

The phrase "... they would face a minimum prison sentence of one year" is also misleading. All sources indicate the sentence as issued is fixed at one year, not a range to be determined later. The LA Times (paywalled and unsuitable as a source) described twelve months as "the minimum penalty for the offense," meaning it could have been longer (see aside below).

The phrasing "...at least five years in prison" overstates the source. France24 reports suspects are "normally subject to ... five years or more in prison," which implies a usual practice and a range, not a fixed minimum. Our phrase also contradicts the LA Times reporting of 12 months being the minimum.

As an aside: Court records show they were convicted under Section 95(c) of Kenya’s Wildlife Conservation and Management Act,[1] which makes offenders "liable on conviction to a fine of not less than one million shillings or a term of imprisonment of not less than twelve months or to both."[2] This provision specifies a 12-month minimum, not five years. France24’s phrasing of "normally subject to … five years or more" therefore does not match the law applied in this case.

I've issued a correction but not self-sighted it so that others can weigh in on the matter.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Done I self-sighted the correction and archived the article after ten weeks of no response. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)