Template:Did you know nominations/The Future of Palestine
- 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 —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 00:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm particularly sensitive to bias in Israel-Palestine matters. And reading this article twice, I haven't found any. So with due respect to CarolOfTheForest's comments - which were worth it checking out, because this is a sensitive topic - I am still approving this.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 00:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Future of Palestine
edit- ... that the 1915 British Cabinet memorandum The Future of Palestine was the first time that enlisting the wartime support of Jews was proposed in an official record?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Syrnet
Created by Oncenawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 11:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC).
@Oncenawhile: Date and length fine. However I do have a minor issue with the hook. In the article, it just refers to Jews generally, it doesn't say specifically Zionist Jews. Either the hook or article would need to be changed before I'd feel happy promoting this. QPQ done, no close para. Will be fine once hook or article has been changed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi The C of E, I have amended the hook above to remove the word "Zionist". Many thanks! Oncenawhile (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- It strikes me that the hook might be pushing an agenda here, instead of just trying to highlight a good article. "Enlisting the wartime support"? Enlisting is a military term, are you saying that Jews were pressed into military service for the Crown? Is it not misleading to say "in an official record"? So as to imply that it happened before. And this is just the "first time"? It must be continuing. CarolOfTheForest (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I am happy to proceed with the revised hook. And in response to Carol, it only says proposed not that they were. A Cabinet paper is an official record. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- It still strikes me as biased and confusing. Looking at the history of the proposing editor, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is something that their editing focuses on. Is it just coincidence that the hook was originally about "Zionist Jews"?
- I believe that this hook has more questions than answers. CarolOfTheForest (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi CarolOfTheForest, the hook follows ref #3 closely. There is a quote in the ref which uses the word "enlisting". And the word Zionist is not a pejorative word as you appear to be implying. It just means supporters of Zionism. Back in 1915 Zionists represented a minority of Jews. This proposal was by definition marketed to enlist the support of Zionist Jews - logic would tell you that non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews would not have their support enlisted by such a plan. It is a sky-is-blue statement in this context, but I took it out because the word wasn't used in this context by Huneidi and it's really not important. I hope you will consider retracting the aspertions cast in your last post. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I just noticed that these comments represent Carol's first ever contributions to wikipedia. Welcome Carol, and thanks for your input here. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi CarolOfTheForest, the hook follows ref #3 closely. There is a quote in the ref which uses the word "enlisting". And the word Zionist is not a pejorative word as you appear to be implying. It just means supporters of Zionism. Back in 1915 Zionists represented a minority of Jews. This proposal was by definition marketed to enlist the support of Zionist Jews - logic would tell you that non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews would not have their support enlisted by such a plan. It is a sky-is-blue statement in this context, but I took it out because the word wasn't used in this context by Huneidi and it's really not important. I hope you will consider retracting the aspertions cast in your last post. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
