Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Zionist League in Iraq


 * 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist League in Iraq

 * ... that after it was banned, members of the Iraqi Anti-Zionist League were arrested and charged with the crime of Zionism?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pyramid of Capitalist System

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 22:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg I'm not sure whether to trust that all the sources I can't see online are not plagiarised, due to close paraphrasing in one place: "It blamed British and American imperialism for the rise in sectarian violence and nationalism." is supported by a citation whose source has the sentence "The league's newspaper published articles blaming British and American imperialism for the growth of nationalism and sectarian violence." The article is new, however, and sufficiently long, seems neutral to me, and has inline citations. The hook is interesting, well supported and short.  If the close paraphrasing is fixed or considered acceptable, I support this DYK. --Slashme (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a single sentence, and I think I rewrote it sufficiently. I changed 'American' to 'U.S.', however. --Soman (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Soman, I'm afraid it isn't rewritten sufficiently. Not even close. Aside from a minor transposition and tense changes, they're identical from "blamed"/"blaming" on except the swap of "growth" for "rise". Changing "American" to "U.S." is merely cosmetic. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sentence rewritten again. However, it should be said that when dealing with a single sentence there are limited number of ways to rephrase without distorting the factual content. --Soman (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but there are methods you can use to deal with this - try reading this Signpost article for pointers. Unique turns of phrase like "communal hatred", for example, should be reworded or quoted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ??? That sentence is by no means close paraphrasing, and for the record communal hatred is not a 'unique turn of phrase'. --Soman (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough (for 16 April) and long enough. Hook checks out with online citation #9. QPQ OK. No problem with disambig links or external links. The instance of close paraphrasing mentioned here is now resolved. Note: You may remove the "orphan" banner from the article if you wish, because there are now two links from other articles to this one (to confirm this, click "what links here" in the left-hand column on the article page). Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)