- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Gates of Tears
- ... that Gates of Tears is the first comprehensive study of the Holocaust in the Lublin District?
- ALT1:... that the Gates of Tears describes how surviving the Holocaust was random and unlikely for Jews in the Lublin District?
Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 08:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
The hook itself is good, although the source for both hooks were not available for comparison. For the second hook, I think it might need to be rewritten a bit (surviving the Holocaust was random and unlikely for most people; the hook doesn't explain why this was especially the case in Lublin district). There was a copyright violation warning for this article which is one of the sources for the wiki article. Certain paragraphs in the wiki article mimic the structure of the source, with slight paraphrases, and use the exact same quotes. If those sections (Title, Contents) were edited, I think the DYK could be approved. Wingedserif (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wingedserif, Could you please be more specific about what changes you want? It's not paraphrasing to use the same quotes, especially if they are correctly cited. I made a few minor changes to the article, and now earwig is mostly picking up on the quotes and the title of the book. That's not plagiarism. buidhe 00:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Buidhe:, sure, sorry to be a pain about this. As WP:PARAPHRASE explains, close paraphrasing *does* count for cases of copyright violation. Right now, the Title section looks like a paraphrase of this section of the Weinbaum review: "The evocative title of his book comes from a poignant letter by Rabbi Zvi Elimelech Talmud, who stated that “only the Gates of Tears have not been locked before us…” When someone prays with eyes full of tears, those prayers are said to pass straight through them." Obviously using the same quotes is fine, but if the text around those quotes is paraphrased, they should be rewritten. Paraphrasing also leads to things like the odd cases where there are quotes from Gates of Tears that are cited to the Weinbaum review. For example, the quote that starts "The search for a mythical heroism...". If you could please correctly cite each quote that comes from Silberklang's book that would help as well. Wingedserif (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I just can't agree with your interpretation of paraphrasing. Writing a wikipedia article necessarily involves rephrasing the contents of a source. Also, I haven't actually managed to get a copy of the book yet, so I couldn't cite directly from it anyway. I have never heard that secondary citations of quotes is wrong before. buidhe 18:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I don't see any close paraphrasing here, either in words or sentences. The quotes from the sources are properly quoted, and the author's prose is his own. Please read WP:LIMITED, which says that there are only so many ways to say things.
- "Gates of Tears" is a well-known expression from the Talmud. I have rewritten the paragraph about "Jewish theology". Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I was asked to provide another opinion on the paraphrasing here. I don't have access to many of the sources, but I've looked at the Weinbaum review and don't see anything concerning. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
-
- I don't agree with the previous editors (WP:LIMITED applies to technical language or broad facts, not synonyms; WP:SWYRT does say indirect citation are fine, but specifies that citations need to mention the original source as well), but since the lines I mentioned have been removed from the article, I approve. Wingedserif (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The hook itself is good, although the source for both hooks were not available for comparison. For the second hook, I think it might need to be rewritten a bit (surviving the Holocaust was random and unlikely for most people; the hook doesn't explain why this was especially the case in Lublin district). There was a copyright violation warning for this article which is one of the sources for the wiki article. Certain paragraphs in the wiki article mimic the structure of the source, with slight paraphrases, and use the exact same quotes. If those sections (Title, Contents) were edited, I think the DYK could be approved. Wingedserif (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)