Talk:Palestine (2011 book)

.ECR-edit-request-warning{
display:none;
}

This was formerly located at Palestine (book). Even if that were the TERSE form of the book's title (which doesn't seem to be true), it is not remotely the PRIMARYTOPIC for that namespace. — LlywelynII 00:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@LlywelynII: I do contest your moving the page and call it being too bold (sorry for that), because I expected you to discuss it before taking the action. Anyway, per the search results, WP:CONCISE and WP:SUBTITLE we should not use the subtitle in the main article title. According to the Persian book cover, "Palestine" is the main title while the rest make the subtitle. Please consider moving it back to former title. Mhhossein (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

It's fine for you to say you consider it to be too bold. The fact remains that the original placement was completely incorrect and this page should stay here for now.

Per WP:USEENGLISH , the Persian title has no importance whatsoever. Whether this page belongs at Selected Statements by Ayatollah Khamenei about Palestine or at ''Palestine'' (some dab) is a question of what the book is called in reputable English language sources. Kindly provide some. TERSE doesn't come into play until we have sources that actually use that title. When I came to this page, there were none and "Palestine" wasn't even mentioned as a title apart from the article's namespace.

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC , you cannot park this text at Palestine (book). That dab should either point directly at Palestine (comic)—which Google considers the primary book by that name—or at the Palestine disambiguation page. — LlywelynII 05:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• @LlywelynII: Your assumption that per wp:useenglish the Persian title has no importance whatsoever is wrong because the fact is that it depends on the situation. in some cases, when a transcription or transliteration of a title originally not in Latin alphabet, is better known, and/or less ambiguous, that version of the title can be used (per Title translations). Anyway, this is not the case and we have to refer to the reliable sources as the policy says. You could check how these sources call the book "Palestine":

• "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called "Palestine" ..." New York Post (repeated in daily mail [1] and The Jersualem Post [2])
• "In book called "Palestine" the Iranian supreme leader..." Haaretz
• "The 416-page book, titled Palestine, was edited by Saeed Solh-Mirzai–but received full approval from Khamenei’s office ..." Western Journalism
• "Palestine is a 416-page diatribe..." Commentary Magazine
• "The Ayatollah of Iran has published a 416-page book entitled "Palestine"..." Jewish Press
• " Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has written a 416-page book titled "Palestine"..." Jewish and Israel News
• "In his recent 416-page book titled "Palestine" ..." Front page magazine

Information in the infobox is right! "Palestine from the Perspective of Ayatollah Khamenei" Mhhossein (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok. So where did the other subtitle come from? — LlywelynII 06:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it stems from here. Mhhossein (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

So it was just made up? Shouldn't include it then. — LlywelynII 12:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

User:Mhhossein: I am confused about something you said, though. If فلسطین از منظر آیت الله خامنه ای actually means Palestine: Selected Statements by Ayatollah Khamenei About Palestine, then why does the article currently state that the literal translation of the Persian title is Palestine from the Perspective of Ayatollah Khamenei? Which one is wrong? — LlywelynII 05:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@LlywelynII: It seems that Selected Statements by Ayatollah Khamenei About Palestine is not name of the book. "Palestine" should be mentioned in article name. I think we can mention both "title" and "sub-title" in article name. If it is becoming too much long article title then short main title is ok.--Human3015 ^TALK  05:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but source that. Worldcat just has the Persian title. The NYPost calls it "Palestine" but as a more or less tabloid broadsheet I don't really trust them to have checked. If the main title is Palestine, that's fine but don't go back to the using (book) as the dab. Use (201X book) or (Khomenei) &c. — LlywelynII 05:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok... going through Google search by Mhhos, Palestine tout suite does seem to be the common English title people are using. Pending an official English language version to the contrary, let's park it at Palestine (2015 book). — LlywelynII 06:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

...Aaaaaaand all the 2015 English-language sources calling it "new" and "the latest book" were wrong because of course they are... Fixed. — LlywelynII 11:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Huh. Keep your eyes open and you learn something new every day: MOS:CAPITALIZATION actually advises that all prepositions over 5 letters be capitalized and cursory Googling shows that isn't exclusively a British affectation. I guess the ... "About" ... in the title should be capitalized here. Sorry about that. Will try to move the page back to the capitalized form. — LlywelynII 05:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The #Contents section of the article keeps having NY Post, Jerusalem Press, and Taheri added to the statements. Their personal opinions are fine for a #Reception or #Criticism section, but mentioning them by name is giving them WP:UNDUE importance in a section dealing with the book's content. People curious where a statement is coming from can look at the citations.

As for the statement that the book is anti-Israeli... well, that's not POVy or BIASed. It openly and blatantly is opposed to the Jewish state and is largely concerned with the proper means for its destruction and/or reincorporation into the community of the faithful. I suppose it could be reworded from "...anti-Israeli..." to something like "...covers various means of removing the Jewish state of Israel..." or something, but to me it seems like one is simply a more verbose form of the other. In any case, if you can read Persian and present a more balanced view than the NY Post and Haaretz are doing, by all means do so. The book itself can be used as a source for its own content and many of the citations provided by the openly biased newspaper articles should eventually be replaced by page numbers in the original text. — LlywelynII 12:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@LlywelynII: I made a new section and took the sentence by Taheri there (thanks for reminding that we may have a reception section containing such things). Btw, how can the book be used as a source for the content of the article? I think it will be a primary source and the content will be WP:OR. Mhhossein (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Mhhossein: see WP:PRIMARY . You're correct that you need to use secondary sources to do any analysis but a citation to the actual book is the best source for its actual contents—in this case, items like the chapter divisions; the primary topics of each chapter; whether or not it actually refers to Israel as an enemy, etc. — LlywelynII 00:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@LlywelynII: You're right I will take a look at it, by the way the external link takes you to its free english version which is reliable. You can also check those allegations. Mhhossein (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Cliftonian: According to the book khamenei says:"Regarding the issue of Palestine, the goal is to liberate Palestine ..., then he continues that "Palestinian lands is part of Muslims’ homeland. Any non-Muslim and non-Palestinian rule over Palestine is illegitimate rule." that's why the article says "Khamenei claims that his strategy for the liberation of Palestine is based on "well-established Islamic principles." So your edit here is not valid. Mhhossein (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Who says this would be the "liberation of Palestine", though? That's a blatantly POV statement that we should attribute as his view if we're going to use. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

You were right if we had said:"Khamenei's strategy for liberation of Palestine is based on ... ." As it's evident, the article uses the word "claim" which when comes with the "his strategy" shows that "liberation of Palestine" is what Ayatollah Khamenei calls. Mhhossein (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I get what you're saying, but unfortunately In the English language this is not clear. There are two separate grammatical clauses here. Most English speakers would take the word "claim" to refer to his assertion at the end of the sentence that the strategy is based on Islamic principles, not everything in the whole sentence. We should therefore add a couple words, as I did in my first edit, to make clear that it is also his opinion that this strategy would bring about "the liberation of Palestine". Thanks for the quick and constructive reply. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

"his strategy for the liberation of Palestine" is devised based on his goal which is liberation of Palestine. It is clear to me. If you still object it we can ask a third opinion. Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Khamanei's strategy refers not only to the territories claimed by the State of Palestine but also to what the international community recognises as the State of Israel. Using the word "Palestine" to refer to all of the former British Mandate is Khamenei's point of view, not a neutral point of view, and we should be crystal clear about that if we are going to use this wording. And again—it's him who's saying this would be a liberation, isn't it? By all means solicit a third opinion. I have no objection. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

To clarify for third parties, this is my original edit that started this dispute. It was reverted here for apparently being original research. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Asking a third opinion: @LlywelynII: What do you think in this regard. Mhhossein (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Cliftonian Hey, is your edit in accordance with the cited ref? --Mhhossein (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, yes. Look: link 1, link 2. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]