The following discussion 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) 04:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• ... that Deception: Betraying the Peace Process reports that a Palestinian football championship and summer camp were named after Dalal Mughrabi, who killed 38 people, 13 of them children?

Created by AnkhMorpork (talk). Self nom at 13:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple of less inflammatory DYK suggestions:

ALT 1 "... that Deception: Betraying the Peace Process was based on an analyses of a year of cultural, educational and general media resources within the Palestinian Authority?"

ALT 2 "... that Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel called Deception: Betraying the Peace Process a "terrifying book"?

I think the original hook will stir up too much controversy and argument to survive. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer something that touches more upon its content so how about...

ALT 3 "... that Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel called Deception: Betraying the Peace Process, a book that analysed a year's worth of Palestinan media, a "terrifying book"?

Ankh.Morpork 16:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have concerns about the article itself, about a book "published in 2011 by the Israel-based media" that blames the Palestinians for destroying the peace process. The book in itself is a POV. It's possible some might even see it as a well-constructed piece of propaganda by one side of the issue. On the front page of Wikipedia, it could easily be considered a racist political point of view. It's problematic, and Wikipedia needs neutrality.

• Nothing in the sourcing indicates the author actually read the book.
• The article was constructed from what others said about the book, many of whom have ties to Israel.
• The article only lists under "Reception" those who agree with the Israeli point of view.
• One of those listed under "Reception' is a co-author of the book giving her opinion of the book.
• Both the New York Public Library and WorldCat give the full title of the book as Deception : betraying the peace process : Palestinian Authority non-recognition of Israel, hate incitement and promotion of violence during the 2010 peace talks and through 2011.

I think this is a serious issue in that the author has put together a singular viewpoint article about a book they seem not to have read. Isn't that legally hearsay? Maile66 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Every book in the world is POV of someone.The article is well sourced by WP:RS.I don't see how it can be racist the artice about the book has appeared NY times [1].So they don't think racist so why should we?

1. Why does it matter for a DYK?
2. The sources appeared in WP:RSanyhow what it matter if they have connection with Israel?
3. This could be addressed and those opinion may be removed.
4. What you point exactly?

Again why should it matter for DYK?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• There was a discussion of this article at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 82#Best way to have a hook from an article on a delicate subject.... (I made a long comment there in response to a request for input). That discussion is highly relevant to the question of why the issues with this article matter to DYK. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't see what's wrong with the original hook. "Reports" is factual and neutral, because all it does is saying that the source in question said the following statement; it's comparable to "According to..." or "... states that...". Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the issue is not with the hook, but rather with the need for balance in the article. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• There have been no edits to the article since July 27, and no comments here that indicate that the article's balance problems, noted by Maile66 and Orlady, will be addressed. I only hesitate to put the orange X here in case there are issues I'm not understanding; articles that do not have a neutral point of view are not eligible for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Hasn't been edited in a month. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)