The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is a consensus here against deletion. Improvement of the article (including splits elsewhere) can still be done/discussed. Eddie891TalkWork14:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essay. It's a good essay! But it's a terrible encyclopedia page. It's in no way objective and seeks to build a specific narrative. It uses quotes selectively to buttress this idea, and outside of the quotations uses subjective language for the same end. It's also somewhat incomprehensible, but that's no reason to delete a page rather than to fix it. Rather, the page exists solely to push a narrative, and doesn't do much besides for that. It's also just not a commonly-used term at all, as a quick Google search shows, so I'm doubtful it hits notability requirements. In sum: it's a subjective essay about a dubiously notable subject. But an interesting read, if it was on a blog somewhere, where it might belong. Bruhpedia (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there isnt a cogent deletion rationale besides "it's an essay", but the sources cited deal with the topic of the article, making it not an essay of an editor's own views but rather a summary of the views of scholars. That somebody cant comprehend a page makes it so that it is the page that is at fault is both a curiosity left for others to unravel as well as not being a deletion rationale. nableezy - 10:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not notable. And it's entirely subjective—it's written as opinion. It's a blog post. The fact that it is sourced is irrelevant—anyone who has attended middle school knows to add sources to argumentative essays. The fact that all of the sources are specifically chosen to bolster the author's claims, and, yes, as you say, to give it a veneer of plausible deniability, is less so.
In addition, though the prosaic writing is incidental, "a curiosity left for others to unravel" is an atrocious way to run an encyclopedia.
Cool story. On Wikipedia when sources deal with a subject as a subject then it is notable. And what we do is summarize their views. The curiosity is that you think that if you can’t understand an article the article is the problem and not your ability to understand it. Your inability comprehend to read the article is your problem. Not Wikipedia’s. Also, the words veneer, plausible, and deniability do not appear in my comment. So either you have that same inability to read my comment as the article or you are making things up when you attribute things to me I never said. nableezy - 14:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A paraphrase (⫽ˈpærəˌfreɪz⫽) is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words. The term itself is derived via Latinparaphrasis, from Ancient Greekπαράφρασις (paráphrasis) 'additional manner of expression'. The act of paraphrasing is also called paraphrasis.
Although paraphrases likely abounded in oral traditions, paraphrasing as a specific educational exercise dates back to at least Roman times, when the author Quintilian recommended it for students to develop dexterity in language. In the Middle Ages, this tradition continued, with authors such as Geoffrey of Vinsauf developing schoolroom exercises that included both rhetorical manipulations and paraphrasing as a way of generating poems and speeches. There is interest in the study of paraphrases relating to concerns around plagiarism and original authorship.[1]
For the purposes of education, Fred Inglis identifies five levels of paraphrase:[2][3]
replacing words with synonyms
varying sentence structure
reordering information
turning long sentences into multiple shorter ones (or vice versa)
expressing abstract concepts more concretely.
Paraphrasing with synonyms is considered by some to be an acceptable stage in teaching paraphrase, but it is necessary that it is ultimately combined with techniques for altering sentence structure to avoid the appearance of plagiarism.[4] Studies of English language students have found that ESL learners tend to rely on using synonyms rather than changing sentence structure when paraphrasing. Participants in a study of some Vietnamese ESL learners expressed that they preferred using synonyms out of a fear that using the wrong sentence structure would lead to the sentence having a different meaning. Na and Mai suggest that ESL teachers should provide varied activities including tasks requiring changes in syntax, and that ESL students should be given source texts to paraphrase whose meaning they are already readily able to understand.[5]
A paraphrase typically explains or clarifies the text that is being paraphrased. For example, "The signal was red" might be paraphrased as "The train was not allowed to pass because the signal was red". A paraphrase is usually introduced with verbum dicendi—a declaratory expression to signal the transition to the paraphrase. For example, in "The signal was red, that is, the train was not allowed to proceed," the that is signals the paraphrase that follows.
A paraphrase does not need to accompany a direct quotation. The paraphrase typically serves to put the source's statement into perspective or to clarify the context in which it appeared. A paraphrase is typically more detailed than a summary. One should add the source at the end of the sentence: When the light was red, trains could not go (Wikipedia).
A paraphrase may attempt to preserve the essential meaning of the material being paraphrased. Thus, the (intentional or otherwise) reinterpretation of a source to infer a meaning that is not explicitly evident in the source itself qualifies as "original research," and not a paraphrase.
Unlike a metaphrase, which represents a "formal equivalent" of the source, a paraphrase represents a "dynamic equivalent" thereof. While a metaphrase attempts to translate a text literally, a paraphrase conveys the essential thought expressed in a source text—if necessary, at the expense of literality. For details, see dynamic and formal equivalence.
Keep I agree that the article is essay-like but it documents the use of a specific term over time in the works of many notable writers so I’m not sure the case for deletion is well made. Mccapra (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair point. I'm still not sure about notability, but I think the article's bias issues can be addressed while keeping the factual content. One issue is that, as the article admits in the first sentence, there's already an article concerning the national political movement of the Palestinian people: Palestinian nationalism. Its use in popular discourse appears to be largely confined to this use, which could suggest a redirect to be the best course of action. However, as you point out, this seems to be a specific literary term in certain contexts, and, if we excise the other stuff, this could probably stand on its own. Bruhpedia (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is written as an essay, sourcing is either red or orange, so nothing for reliability. I can't find mention of the term otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh they yellow cus they books linked to on google books, but books published by university presses are reliable. If you’re basing this on a color wheel you should try reading it instead. nableezy - 23:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wild alienation your attitude fosters aside, journals and books aren't ipso facto optimal sources here. They're perfect for, say, scientific topics, but in contentious soft fields like this one, they generally contain arguments. As such, they need to be counterbalanced. Maybe the article could be expanded by more about Israeli views on the topic. Bruhpedia (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two different points. To the latter, I was trying to say that, on a highly contentious issue, especially one with no objective right answer, you're going to get multiple camps of highly camps of convincing, highly-reputable sources that disagree completely and, in many cases, hate each other. By spotlighting only one of those camps, you can argue convincingly that you have reputable sources, but it doesn't ultimately matter.
To the former, but related, point, journals and books are good, but few of the ones cited strive for objectivity. Good journalism at least tries to be objective, which might be better than cherry-picking sources from only a certain side of the divide. Bruhpedia (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruhpedia Respectfully and sincerely, I don't understand why you keep repeating that the current state of the article is biased. Let's just assume for a second that you are 100% correct. Does that mean we delete it? No, it does not. And you appear to have abandoned your other argument, which is a ground for deletion, notability. So I don't understand why you don't head to the library and find some sources to balance out the bias you perceive. And if you get pushback, you can engage the relevant editing community in the Talk page. But I get the impression that you are unnecessarily spending a lot of energy defending your assertion that there is a severe bias and perhaps losing sight of the fact that that is not the issue in a deletion debate. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, experts writing in the field of their expertise in books published by respected academic publishers are the top quality sources here and everywhere else besides breaking news. nableezy - 02:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It identifies google books links as yellow because you can link to a self published work by some random schmuck, and that would be unreliable, or a book by the worlds leading authority, and that would be reliable. But it is yellow because the link is google books, not because it is not reliable. nableezy - 14:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! Thanks, I found the script and installed it. And yes, I'm noticing that all links to Google Books are highlighted in yellow now. --Orgullomoore (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split into Palestinian nationalism and Palestinanism (word) There's already a page for the Palestinian cause, and portions of this are arguably a POV fork of it. There's also some interesting stuff on the literary term "Palestinianism" as used by writers. I think the two could perhaps be divided. Bruhpedia (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the nth time, an essay is an expression of an author's personal views. A wiki article is a careful paraphrase of what relevant RS state or claim about a given topic. The views here are those given in reputable sources, not mine. Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming around on keeping it, but it seems disingenuous to suggest that you can't write a synthetic essay with an implicit thesis. By the contentious nature of the topic, even reputable scholars are highly divided, and by (explicitly) categorizing much of the work of one of the two camps as polemical while quoting the other at length, you're making a pretty strong statement. Nice job writing it though. Bruhpedia (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.