Talk:A Thousand Splendid Suns

Removed plot summary

I removed the plot summary because it was taken verbatim from the Booklist review; see the description at Amazon. A new, original plot intro/summary would be most welcome. --ShelfSkewed Talk 01:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of === in character list

Sorry about my use of === for the character list, I saw that in the character list for The Da Vinci Code so I assumed it was OK (it was a little different on the page). Anyways thanks for correcting it! andkore 02:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. The stronger sectioning can be a good way to organize the characters when the descriptions become longer. I just thought it was a little too much for the brief descriptions that are there now. Happy editing!--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

I have added a plot summary. The WP community is free to edit it, adding excessive and trivial details as is the norm. Perhaps you would like to rewrite it so that it reads more like a high school book report? Shoehorn 06:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A Thousand Splendid Suns.gif

Image:A Thousand Splendid Suns.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mariam = Tajik?

Does the book ever say this? I never noticed it mentioned. If someone can show me a page where that is mentioned...then I would concede. I just read the book so everything is fresh in my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.162.21 (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the character descriptions to show that Mariam, Nana and Jalil are Tajiks. The book never speaks directly to their collective ethnicity. However, a statement by Mariam's half-sister does infer that they are all members of the Persian-speaking Tajik community in Herat:

           "...it would be preferable that you marry a local, a Tajik..." (p. 44 hardcover edition)

Mariam's family would seem to definitely NOT be Pashtun. It is mentioned throughout the book that she is unfamiliar with Pashto. It is a final annoyance to her Taliban prosecutors

           " that Mariam could not speak Pashto". (p. 324) 

It also seems highly doubtful that she would be Hazara, as the book goes into some detail as to describing Hazaras and their plight without ever connecting them to Mariam. Furthermore, considering the persecution that the Shia Hazaras suffered at the hands of the Taliban, one would imagine that if Mariam was in fact a Hazara, the dealers of Taliban justice would have immediately executed her for heresy without much ado.

Ultimately, it seems like Mariam's family's ethnicity is obscured, and I wonder if this might have been intended. If others are displeased with listing Mariam and her parents as Tajiks, then I would suggest merely writing that they are Farsi-speaking and from Herat. But definitely not Pashtuns, and most likely not Hazaras.Konchevnik81 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

um can i just say something...just because you speak farsi and not a word of pashto doesnt actually make you tajik, my whole family speaks farsi and no pashto but we are ethnically pashtun...im not sure you can assume such on the basis that she spoke farsi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostinmylife (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A good point, unsigned. I think that the ethnicity isn't clear, and should probably be left that way. It's a little silly for Wiki users to try to classify people when often no such clear-cut classifications exist in real life. Still, the issue is not the ethnicity of relatives of anonymous wiki users, but the above-quoted sections of the book. Mariam and her relatives would appear to be much closer/familiar (socially, culturally or what have you) to Tajiks from Herat than to Pashtuns from Kabul. Does anyone know of anything that the author has said that might clear this matter up? Konchevnik81 (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Title

In some versions of The Kite Runner there is a page that says that Khaled Hosseini's next novel (supposed to be released in 2006) is called Dreaming in Titanic City. Is this an alternate title for A Thousand Splendid Suns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.172.2 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mariam = Hazara ?

How is it possible if Mariam is Hazara and both of her parents are pashtuns ?

Boris Lee (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction in plot summary

I'm sorry I'm not aware of the convention for posting here. But ill say it anyway. In the plot summary for part 3, a line reads -

Laila says yes immediately. Then is when she realizes she is pregnant - with Tariq's child.

To me this seems to imply that Laila became aware of the pregnancy after she said yes to Rasheed, while in fact she consented to Rasheed's proposal because she knew about the child. Maybe this sentence could be rephrased? 122.169.9.172 (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Prateek

Feel free to edit it! Joran95 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent removal of plot summary

The plot summary was recently removed, citing this page as the original source from which the Wikipedia section was copied. But the source is dated December 11, 2008 and is a copy of the plot section in the Wikipedia article on that date. And an examination of the edit history of A Thousand Splendid Suns will show that this plot summary did not suddenly appear whole just as it is, but grew and developed over the course of many months. In other words, the supposed source is the copy, and not the other way around. I have restored the plot section.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed as excessively long for a plot summary. Try a more concise version. Since you've looked at the history, perhaps one of the older ones would fit Wikipedia standards better. Look for something about 1/3 the size or less. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough--and done. I restored the original basic plot summary added by another editor, and copy-edited for even further brevity. It's about 1/5 the length.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. DreamGuy (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

kolba?

The internal link to kolba is wrong, because the page states that it is a village somewhere, yet in the book it is used as a noun to describe some sort of hut or something. The question arises, what exactly IS a kolba anyways? Does anyone know if there is any definition offered somewhere in the book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.205.99 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Thousand Splendid Suns/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review. I really appreciate it. --1ST7 (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm guessing from your relatively new account that this is your first nomination? Don't worry, it's a really painless process. I won't have time to do detailed comments tonight, but at first glance, the article looks close to ready. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is my first nomination, so I'm not too familiar with the process but am glad to hear that it's not too complicated. Anyway, thanks again and have a good evening. --1ST7 (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is a strong first nomination, and seems close to ready for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it, I think it's really paid off. I'm a bit of a grammar stickler, but I found very little to pick at here; it seems well-written and to cover major aspects of the subject. I have a few concerns noted below, but I think these will be easily fixed. If you would use the {{done}} template under the points that have been done, I'd appreciate it; I'm also happy to discuss further if you disagree with any. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Together with The Kite Runner, it sold over 38 million copies worldwide across 70 countries" -- this is a slightly confusing statistic, especially as Kite Runner, which was such a monster publishing sensation, presumably outsold this one. Is it possible to give an individual figure? I know these can be hard to come by for books.

 Done I was only able to get a figure for the number of copies sold during the first week, as every other source seems to use the 38 million figure, but I think it's more clear now. --1ST7 (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• "behind her walls"" -- the blockquote ends with a quotation mark but doesn't begin with one. Since it's a blockquote, I don't think the marks are needed here in any case, but this should be fixed either way.

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Jennifer Marciniak's paper from academia.edu is very unlikely to meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, which require a reputation for editorial oversight and factchecking; this seems more like a self-published source. This probably needs to be cut.

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The movie is expected to be released in 2015" -- This sentence seems like it could rapidly go out of date. Per WP:REALTIME, it would be good to fix this expectation to a date, i.e., "in October 2012, the studio was announced a tentative release date of 2015."

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• The lead should act as a summary of the body, rather than independent text, per WP:LEAD; the information about the book's sales should thus be mirrored in the body text, while sections of the body like "Themes" and "film" should be mentioned in the lead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Thanks for the speedy responses. Let me do a final check to see if there's anything left. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Thousand Splendid Suns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901005325/http://us.penguingroup.com:80/static/rguides/us/thousand_splendid_suns.html to http://us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/thousand_splendid_suns.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Recommended update

Perhaps there should be a section detailing listing major differences between the novel and the theatrical adaptation now that the play has premiered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaRPTuX (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)