Template:Did you know nominations/A History of the Palestinian People


 * 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing nomination as unsuccessful; no agreement on whether it is appropriate for the main page, and over three months since initial nomination

A History of the Palestinian People

 * ... that the 2017 book A History of the Palestinian People about the history of the Palestinians became an Amazon.com bestseller, despite containing mainly blank pages?
 * ALT1: ... that the 2017 book A History of the Palestinian People, which became an Amazon.com bestseller despite containing mainly blank pages, was later removed from the site?
 * ALT2: ... that the 2017 book A History of the Palestinian People became an Amazon.com bestseller despite containing only a cover page, a George Costanza quote and blank pages?

Created/expanded by Icewhiz (talk). Nominated by DGtal (talk) at 12:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Just about everything checks out except for the QPQ -- and I'm not sure that the nominator has had five (or any) previous DYK nominations for the rule to apply to him/her. Dahn (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Long enough, new, properly cited and neutral, with no plagiarism and a single image with proper OTRS license. ALTs are both interesting, the original hook is a bit repetitive. QPQ does not apply, as this is user's first nomination. Dahn (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have pulled this nomination from prep as the article clearly fails NPOV. This "book" is merely a prank mocking the existence of the Palestinian people and I doubt it has any place on DYK or even Wikipedia, even if it was written neutrally, but at minimum the article would need to include a much more comprehensive coverage of opinions of those critical of this prank "history". Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While I know little of the DYK process - I dispute your NPOV tag. The lead clearly states "purporting to cover the history of the Palestinian People from the dawn of humanity to present day. It was published in paperback and digital formats in 2017, and most of its contents are blank pages.". Highly negative responses by the pro-Palestinian sources are also noted (though this could be expanded - there was some coverage by Arabic sources as well). Note that this isn't merely a prank - the position that the Palestinians have no history outside of modern times has some merit and is an established position by many (including Golda Meir dating back to 1969) - this is a serious claim, which might be wrong, but it is made in a non-prank context.Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC) I migrated some positive pro-Jewish reviews and a much larger section (including several publications in Arabic) of pro-Palestinian reviews negative of the book into the article from the Hebrew wiki (which was translated from the English but gained a more substantial review section subsequent to review - including Arab coverage (the initial enwiki was, for the most part, based on English coverage which was substantive by itself)) - this should be a balanced and NPOV account of the reception the book received. This book was lauded by some Israeli sources, while being labelled as racist and even promoting ethnic cleansing by pro-Palestinians, so this is not just a prank.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Gatoclass, it seems to me like you're trying to present your point of view on the issue as the NPOV, and, what is more, it appears that you are presenting neutral coverage of an opinion you dislike as itself POV. Dahn (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine, but consensus will ultimately determine what constitutes NPOV. In the meantime, this article is at AFD, so this discussion is effectively on hold until that process is concluded. Gatoclass (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg This nomination was accidentally lost from the nominations page after being promoted to prep and then pulled back, which is probably why no one came back to it after the AfD closed on July 27. It was closed as no consensus, and has subsequently been tagged with a notability template by one of those who !voted to delete it. It cannot be approved at DYK with that template on it; the question is, given the AfD results, whether it should continue to have that template, and also whether the article is currently neutral, since that was the initial reason it was pulled. I'm pinging everyone who has participated on this page to see how we should proceed from here: DGtal, Raymie, Dahn, Cwmhiraeth, Icewhiz, and Gatoclass. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My contribution was technical (formatting fixes to the hook as this was the contributor's first nomination), and I'm neutral with respect to this nomination. The AfD seemed to be quite mixed on the topic, with a range of responses. Raymie (t • c) 01:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder about this nomination,. As a matter of principle, I don't believe that articles which have closed at AFD as "no consensus" should be featured at DYK. While "no consensus" permits an article to remain on wikipedia, we have always had a higher standard of inclusion at DYK because articles with major unresolved issues such as notability or POV concerns obviously should not be featured on the main page. So I think this nomination should be rejected. Gatoclass (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As nominator I really didn't expect such a magnitude of discussion and editing round the article, certainly not a AFD. I personally think the article is neutral but I accept that the article may not be fit for DYK and in any case, by now it isn't fresh enough for a DYK. Feel free to archive my request. DGtal (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While it is sad this is the case, I do not believe a consensus on this article is possible (anytime soon) among editors as there is a very strong POV by some on the underlying subject - beyond the typical ARBPIA article (this wasn't clear to me initially writing this (many of the initial sources treated this as a "lightweight" subject) - but some of the Arabic language sources and editor responses made this clear to me)).Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing per the above comments. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)