Template:Did you know nominations/Palestine (book)

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 PFHLai (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Palestine (book)[edit]

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC).

  • Article has 2271 characters in prose, nominated within due time, copyvio unlikely, hook is interesting and sourced, QPQ done. Good to go.--Human3015TALK  06:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I know it's a side point, but in the future kindly remember to check the hook for basic English grammar. Fix'd. — LlywelynII 17:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks LlywelynII for your improvements in hook and article, I think ALT1 is also interesting. Rest of review stays. It is surely good to go now.--Human3015TALK  01:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015: Hey I do object this proposal by LlywelynII. The book title should be moved back to the former title per the Google results and per the fact that we don't use the subtitle in article titles (See: WP:CONCISE & WP:SUBTITLES). The main title for the book is "Palestine", if you could read Farsi. Moreover, the book is not by khamenei and it just includes his statements. This Alt1 is totally wrong. Mhhossein (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The article thus far treated this as the title of the work, not a subtitle. The NYP isn't really a reliable source for Persian translation or title sourcing and "tract on Palestine" and "Palestine book" aren't titles but ok... looking through your Google results, I do see places like Haaretz that are a bit more careful that are calling it Palestine. Per all of those sources you just linked, however, the book is by the Ayatollah; it is edited by someone else, which has very little importance since it's being published in Iran and presumably the editing reflects what the Ayatollah wanted to say. ALT1 wasn't wrong but emended to reflect new info and the contents of the book, as presented in the article. — LlywelynII 06:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems that there is an issue of content dispute and move warring is going on. So we can put this DYK on hold till dispute gets resolved. Involved editors should resolve their dispute on article's talk page (not here) so that future editors can read that discussion. They can also seek for WP:DRN. Once this dispute gets resolved this article will be ready to go. I think they should decide the name of the book based on the policy. --Human3015TALK  05:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems like overkill. The article previously treated the subtitle as the title but Mhhossein has shown that Palestine tout suite is probably the common English name for the book. He was also polite and wasn't "warring" at all, just presenting his case... and winning. — LlywelynII 06:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Human3015: It seems that LlywelynII moved it to a suitable place, thanks to his smart choice. Anyway, I think we'd better avoid expressing wrong information on the main page as the book fundamentally is by another one (Not khamenei) as the persian sources say. In fact, Saeed Solh-Mirzai has authored the book by searching through khamenei's statements on the Palestine issue and collecting them in his book. That's why I still prefer the original hook. Mhhossein (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Does the book consist of compiled speeches and quotes by Khomenei? or is it all Solh-Mirzai's commentary on a few excerpts? If it's the first one, the "book" is "by" the Ayatollah and Solh-Mirzai is just an editor. If it's the second one, the entire article needs to be rewritten to reflect that and the accuracy of Solh-Mirzai's presentation of the Ayatollah's positions. — LlywelynII 06:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, %^&*. I tried to find that info but couldn't find anything beyond "new" in 2015 sources. "New", my %$^&. Thanks for finding that, though. — LlywelynII 11:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Article is stable now. I think dispute has been resolved. Article has 2293 characters, copyvio unlikely. Written with NPOV. Good to go.--Human3015TALK  05:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)