Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 06:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations

[edit]
(
)
John Paul arriving in Sarajevo
John Paul arriving in Sarajevo
  • ... that Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations (papal visit pictured) have been fostered by Bosnian Muslim officials, but aggravated by the country's Christian officials?
    Source: "Momlico Krajisnik, the Serbian member of the presidency, refused to attend the welcoming ceremony because, as an Orthodox Christian, he does not recognise the Pope. But the Muslim member and chairman of the presidency, Alija Izetbegovic, was there to greet the Pope.." [1] "Srpski zastupnici u Domu naroda Parlamenta Bosne i Hercegovine u petak su spriječili odobravanje temeljnog ugovora o odnosima BiH i Svete stolice..." "'Vatikan je važan u međunarodnim odnosima', istaknuo je Tihić čija upozorenja nisu naišla na razumijevanje srpskih zastupnika." [2]

5x expanded by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC).

  • The article is long enough and has been 5xed in less than seven days after this edit. The materials are properly cited with every paragraph having at least one citation. The text is not violating copyright and so is the inserted photo. However, Alija Izetbegovic's greeting the pope can't be generalized to "...Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations (flags pictured together) have been fostered by Bosnian Muslim officials." The lead of the article needs to be changed, too. --Mhhossein talk 13:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not just Izetbegović. Tihić is mentioned too. It's not generalization, but merely plural, since both Izetbegović and Tihić were Bosnian Muslim officials. Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Izetbegović and Tihić" are two Muslim officials, not "Muslim officials". You'd better find a source for the claim. --Mhhossein talk 18:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon, two Muslim officials are not Muslim officials? What are they then? Buddhists? Even if we are arguing semantics, I honestly do not see the problem there. Besides, Izetbegović and Tihić were (in 1997 and 2007 respectively) leaders of the ruling Muslim party, and Izetbegović exercised executive power, so they were the Muslim officials. The sources are cited, both here and in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Surtsicna and Mhhossein: I think you're both right here. Although two Muslim officials are certainly "Muslim officials" in a literal sense, the hook naturally reads as referring to the Muslim and Christian officials as individual and distinct blocs. Propose:
ALT1: ... that Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations (papal visit pictured) have been fostered by some Bosnian Muslim officials, but aggravated by other of the country's Christian officials? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Usernameunique:I fear that makes the hook less "hooky" ("short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article"). The original is not factually incorrect, obviously not in a literal sense but not in any other either since these two did represent the largest (and ruling) Muslim party. Perhaps implicitly referring to two specific instances would be a better solution to this (non-existant, IMO) problem: Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Usernameunique: Thanks for the suggestion, I think "some" is vague. Surtsicna's suggestions are both WP:OR and needs to be addressed. --Mhhossein talk 02:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The sources cited in the article and quoted here clearly show there is no OR involved. There is nothing wrong with my or Usernameunique's hook being "vague"; in fact, giving only part of the relevant information is advised to make the hook more interesting. If you are not able or willing to read the article or the sources, or at least the nomination (in which these sources are quoted), this nomination needs another reviewer. Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Surtsicna and Mhhossein: If we want "to make the hook more interesting," then:

ALT3: ... that when Pope John Paul II paid a state visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1997, 23 mines were discovered placed where he was supposed to have driven? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I considered something like that, but decided it would be better to have the title of the article mentioned verbatim since it's not about a single visit (we have such articles). I also think your former suggestion (as well as mine) is more interesting since, well, Sarajevo is already well-known for both assassinations and mines. Surtsicna (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Surtsicna and Mhhossein: It's the combination of a pope and mines and a possible assassination attempt that make it interesting. Here it is again, rephrased:
ALT4: ... that with Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations improving, Pope John Paul II came for a visit (pictured)—and then discovered that 23 mines were placed where he was to have driven? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
ALT4 is an improvement. I see no problem with this suggestion. We can move forward with it. --Mhhossein talk 02:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the image. It appears that a far more relevant one was available on the Commons. Also updated the hooks accordingly. Surtsicna (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • For ALT4, I very much doubt that the Pope was the one who discovered the 23 mines, as is implied by the wording. If the idea is to be used, it will need to be reworded. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, if we nitpicked about the original hook, we may as well nitpick about ALT4 too. I still think the original is more interesting. What do you say, BlueMoonset? Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Mhhossein:, here are reworded versions:
ALT5: ... that with Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations improving, Pope John Paul II came for a visit (pictured)—and then police discovered 23 mines placed where he was to have been driven?
ALT6: ... that with Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations improving, Pope John Paul II came for a visit (pictured)—only for police to discover 23 mines placed where he was to have been driven? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the point. The nominator insists that the original is factually correct, which I find false. --Mhhossein talk 19:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: We can ask for another review, if you still think the original hook is factually right and accurate. --Mhhossein talk 19:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Mhhossein, if you don't find the original hook to be accurate, then you don't have to approve it. Since Surtsicna has not replied here in a month, I don't think the offer for a new reviewer needs to be extended any further. I have modified the wording in both ALT5 and ALT6 from "have driven" to "have been driven" for further clarity. Please take a look at those hooks, decide which (if any) are adequate, and continue from there. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: You're welcome. Can I ask you to see if I'm right when I say the original hook is not accurate? You can read my first comments in this thread to see why I objected the hook. If you don't want to do so, then I think we can go ahead with ALT5. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk
  • Mhhossein, the original hook strikes me as problematic, not only for generalizing two leaders as representing the country's Muslims, but also for giving the impression that it was just them doing the fostering, leaving out the Catholic Croats entirely. (Catholics are Christians, though not Orthodox Christians, and the hooks strike me as problematic in that way, in addition to the OR issues.) Please finish the review; I've struck all the earlier hooks, leaving just ALT5 and ALT6. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Let's go with ALT5. --Mhhossein talk 17:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina–Holy_See_relations&oldid=807809352"