Jump to content

Talk:Defeating ISIS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDefeating ISIS was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 8, 2017Articles for deletionKept
June 12, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
July 8, 2017WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 10, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Donald Trump said he read the book Defeating ISIS by Malcolm Nance while a candidate for U.S. president?
Current status: Former good article nominee

DYK?

[edit]

Sagecandor, have you considered nominating this for WP:DYK? It should be eligible. I know that you withdrew the GA nom, but DYK is a good interim step. Neutralitytalk 19:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality, perhaps you'd like to do it. I seem to be stepping on toes lately. Maybe best to defer to your judgment about what best to write about it for DYK ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality:I took your advice and nominated it at Template:Did you know nominations/Defeating ISIS. Sagecandor (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Maddow quote

[edit]

Rachel Maddow quote is directly relevant to the book and the topic of this article. No idea about this edit [1], but it is not explained here on the talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from your talk page) Your ES made no sense. Re-read the comments in the source and you will see you misconstrued them completely. zzz (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not misconstrue anything. I merely quoted directly from the cited source itself. The reader can then read the direct quote. Sound good, we can add it back with just the quote and no misconstruing? Sagecandor (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming, after re-reading as suggested, that you did not misconstrue (i.e. misrepresent) the comments? zzz (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How so? Sagecandor (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The citation is: Chotiner, Isaac (April 11, 2016), "Rachel Maddow Always Believed in Bernie Sanders", Slate, retrieved June 8, 2017
  2. Maddow says: "Malcolm Nance has this new book out about defeating ISIS. It’s not like a prose book. It’s like an encyclopedia."
  3. The quote is about this book.
  4. The quote gives the title of the book in the quote, Defeating ISIS.
  5. The quote has a link inside the quote to the Amazon.com page about the book.
  6. We should therefore include this sourced material in this article, as directly relevant to the book. Sagecandor (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the rest of the paragraph in the source? zzz (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she reads the book she refers to as an encyclopedia before bedtime. Not as relevant to this article. The quote, above, is directly relevant to this article. Sagecandor (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say "read the next sentence and stop there"? No, I said "read the rest of the paragraph". I'm not sure exactly what your issue is (probably a combination of factors), but I've had enough of playing this game. zzz (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read the entire article when I did the initial research for this article. It's directly relevant to the book. You have failed to explain yourself. Will add it back to this article, barring a specific explanation as to why it the source should not be included in this article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should this quote from notable person Rachel Maddow be included in this article: "Malcolm Nance has this new book out about defeating ISIS. It’s not like a prose book. It’s like an encyclopedia." ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Response

[edit]

I'm going to suggest a middle way here: Reference the quote in the footnote, rather than the body of the article. In-article text can note that Maddow referenced this book as a source she used to educate herself about ISIS, as that is entirely consistent with what the article says. Then any desired quote can be included within the footnote itself, so the coverage does not appear WP:UNDUE in comparison to those who have offered more substantive commentary on the work itself. I will leave this page watchlisted for a few days for further discussion if needed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens:Agreed. Done. [2]. Look good? Sagecandor (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty literal--I was suggesting a direction for commentary rather than specific wording--but it certainly appears to work. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it could probably use some rewording (or removing entirely), but it seems to work. Thanks. zzz (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with keeping wording suggested by third-party previously uninvolved Jclemens. Sagecandor (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump says he read the book during 2016 campaign

[edit]

Trump says he read the book during 2016 campaign.

First reported in Time magazine.

Was either in August 1, 2016, August 8, 2016, or August 22, 2016 edition.

Doing further research on this. Sagecandor (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Full citation. Full quotation. Notable author. Notable source. Reliable source. Time magazine. Sagecandor (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added [3]. Sagecandor (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defeating_ISIS&oldid=1252353426"