Talk:The Terrorists of Iraq

Notable book per WP:NBOOK Criteria (1)
Notable book. Per WP:NBOOK Criteria number one (1). The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.

Namely, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, and The Times of Israel. Sagecandor (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Required reading at Tufts University
Required reading at Tufts University.

This is not "trivia".

Directly goes to notability of the work.

I'd rather not have stuff removed so that someone can then come and try to nominate the page for deletion, thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia. Material only used to establish credibility should not be in the lede.  The reference is already in the body of the text. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine whatever. Just please don't try to be disruptive and jeopardize the stability of this page. Sagecandor (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Question: Is it of note to mention in the lede that the book was required reading at Tufts University ? Sagecandor (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Power~enwiki wrote: "Material only used to establish credibility should not be in the lede." I cannot find any Wikipedia guidance that backs up this claim. AFAICT, it is fine for WP:BK to be established anywhere in the article. I hope this helps answer your question. zazpot (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing your previously uninvolved opinion. I would agree with you that a book being required reading at a prestigious institution like Tufts University does go to notability. Can this be added back to the lede now? Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * having now skimmed the article, I note that the fact in question is mentioned in what seems to be the most suitable place for it: the Release and reception section. Therefore, it would be redundant to also have the fact in the lede. The lede should only relate information likely of interest to a wide audience, and I do not think the fact in question meets that bar, even though it does help establish the book's notability. Personally, I would leave the article as it stands in this regard. Best wishes, zazpot (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm done discussing this matter. Perhaps  or  will discuss it. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you, will take your advice, appreciate it ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)