Template:Did you know nominations/Hana Shalabi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion 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 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hana Shalabi, Khader Adnan[edit]

Created/expanded by Al Ameer son (talk), Tiamut (talk). Nominated by The Egyptian Liberal (talk) at 18:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg *The hook fact might be took close paraphrasing:"following in the footsteps" could be said a different way. *I don't like the way the hook is phrased, she started... did she finish? The word "since" makes it sound like it is still going on. You would have to update it everyday until it posts. Maybe "began a hunger strike when she was arrested." That way it can be open ended. Or "began a hunger strike that was 11 days old as of (what ever date it was)". *I don't like the way the citations are formatted. It looks like information is left out like the names of publishers.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... following in the footsteps of Khader Adnan, Hana Shalabi began her ongoing hunger strike when she was arrested?
Yes, the hunger strike is still ongoing until this moment (40 Days today). Sadly, there are names of any publishers so the citations are correct and are done using Reflinks. Let me know if there is any more problems :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
so you want the hook to be more open ended, because we do not know when or how the strike will end. Also the wording "following in the footsteps" is too close to the source so it has to be changed. It will not pass prep. Something like "emulating"..."inspired by"...something like that.--Ishtar456 (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I reworded the hook fact in the article and suggest this alternative hook. It is less confusing and more open ended, although I think that it could be better. If you like it or have an alternative let me know.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I would change the fasting with "hunger strike" since its more accurate. When Muslims fast, they break their fast at sunset while on hunger strike, that doesnt happen. Other than that, it looks good to me. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I knew I did not have it quite right but could not put my finger on.
  • One article all set for ALT 2, I just realized that it is a double. I bolded Khader Adnan and I will have to do it later. Both articles need to be bold when nominating two. --Ishtar456 (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Khader Adnan does not appear to be new enough. Unless I missed something, I would go with the single entry.--Ishtar456 (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Khader Adnan doesnt have to mentioned but he did set that example that Hana is following. I know his article is not new enough so what do you think we should do? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • the link can remain where it is, just not as a double entry.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Pass as a single nom of the Hana Shalabi article for the Alt I am calling Alt 3.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg The hook's premise is that these people are a couple of Gandhis. Violates neutrality, not to mention the articles themselves aren't neutral. DYK should be fun and informative, not opinion-based. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I completely disagree. That is why I passed the nom. It is a fact that they have/are using this tactic and that is all the article,hook says (only one article is being nominated here and I checked it for neutrality). I did not detect any opinion of the writer one way or the other. Even people who may not represent your point of view deserve to have articles written about them. I would like other opinion, please.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It's called "Did You Know" not "You Oughta Know." Soapboxing is not allowed on Wikipedia, DYK or otherwise. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg I have just read this article and it is absolutely neutral, stating only facts. Yes, the subject deals with a topic about which many people have strong opinions, but a negative opinion of a fact does not turn that fact into a point of view. It remains a fact. A statement about someone's point of view is also a fact, that so-and-so did, in fact, say thus-and-such. Stating that the government of Israel considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization is a fact. Stating that the subject said particular things happened to her is a fact. She said these things. This article does not characterize the facts, or express support or disapproval of them, it merely states them. For this article to violate neutrality, it would have to say things like "the fascist government of Israel" or "the courageous Palestinian prisoner", but the article has no such descriptives in it, it is absolutely neutral. The Khader Adnan article, so long as it is not bolded, is perfectly acceptable for the hook. Only the main article (bolded) is required to meet the qualifications of DYK. Another point: DYK is not just supposed to be "fun", it's supposed to be informative and have a variety of articles in order to appeal to the broadest number of readers. Articles are supposed to relate to different cultures and countries and cover a range of topics, including the sciences, the arts, architecture, religion, politics, crime, war, Nazis, sports, nature. Yes, it tries to not end with something unpleasant, like murder, but topics of all sorts are featured on DYK, not just "fun" things. This article has been rightfully approved. Marrante (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I forgot to mention I prefer the ALT3 hook. Marrante (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg DYK Policy states: a) Articles must meet the Neutral point of view policy. Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.
If you didn't find errors and irregularities, not to mention a lack of RS besides news stories, in the Hana Sloppy- article, then you weren't looking. That is what this hook is, too, a news story. It clearly violates the bolded text above.
And if that weren't enough to stop ALT3, it has a misspelling of ISRAHELL. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you for catching the typo in ALT3. I assume the one found in your last post was intentional. I find no errors or irregularities in the article and I have a hard time believing that you don't consider sources like the BBC, Agence France Presse and Haaretz to be reliable. Surely you can't be maligning the integrity of the sources because some are Arabic. The source from a human rights organization is also reliable, even though the group is not western; details are corroborated elsewhere by the sources mentioned previously. The article does not promote any side, it simply states the facts related to the subject, who happens to be Palestinan. Articles about Palestinians are not prohibited on Wikipedia. You are equating the existence of the article with promotion of a point of view, but they are not one and the same. A point of view would tell others how to think, which this article does not do. The article is neutral, notable and well sourced. It has been approved and is ready for DYK. Marrante (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to underscore the difference between statement of fact and point of view, the name of the country is Israel, not Israhell and the name of the article's subject is Hana Shalabi, not Hana Sloppy. This example may help others to distinguish which arguments being presented are simple presentation of the facts and which are examples of soapboxing. Marrante (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
If you'd reviewed the nom article, you'd have noticed this on the talk page:
Like Khader Adnan, it seems the Western press is ignoring her story. There is more from Ma'an and the Alternative Information Center and Palestine News Netwok, but in the West, nada ... Tiamuttalk 21:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you believe this article is being nominated for the right reasons? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)