Template:Did you know nominations/Fatimid desecration of Jerusalem

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: rejected by Zanhe (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The nomination has been rejected multiple times by multiple reviewers. The nominator has not edited in almost a month, and has not addressed significant neutrality issues, even though they had two months to do so. It's time to close the nomination.

Fatimid desecration of Jerusalem

(

)

Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah

... that the Fatimid desecration of Jerusalem was ordered by a Mad Caliph who proclaimed himself to be the Mahdi?

Created by Guru Noel (talk). Self-nominated at 16:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC).

Considerably problematic in its current form. The article is new enough and (barely) long enough, but I cannot judge it as within policy. Both article and hook present an exceedingly non-neutral point of view regarding the controversial historical figure Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. The second paragraph is entirely unreferenced. Whatever the Morris 2005 reference is isn't formatted correctly; it appears to be taken from another article that used shortened footnotes and harvard referencing. Because of this problem, I cannot verify claims sources to it; this is especially problematic because it appears to take the writings of Adémar de Chabannes at face value, which further compounds NPOV concerns. Indeed, the article title itself is problematic, with an alternative such as Destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre perhaps being preferable, if it is even determined that this is a necessary spinout from Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In any case, this article, as it stands currently, is not in my opinion suitable for display on the Main Page. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for your review. The article has now been substantially re-written to better show clear title is correct and the scope of the desecration to Jewish and Christian sites outside of Jerusalem. Morris source has been replaced. Guru Noel (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Still no. This article, from title to text to proposed DYK hook, presents an exceedingly Western/Judeo-Christian biased accounting of the 1009 destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and its consequences. Neglecting any consideration of the Fatimid perspective is not neutral. Deeming the destruction of the church the "desecration of Jerusalem" is not neutral. Newly-added text equating the actions of Al-Haqim with the Biblical abomination of desolation phrase is absolutely not neutral. The proposed hook is worse, essentially using the words of Adémar de Chabannes to call Al-Haqim the Antichrist. The article's topic is a complex, nuanced, and sensitive event. The article itself is not; I will not approve it for DYK. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Excuse me, but the entire of Wikipedia is Western/Judeo-Christian biased accounting! What do you think our University system is based on? There are no Fatimid perspectives, they all likely killed Al-Hakim. We don't give Hitler's perspective on the holocaust because no-one (or a negligible minority) support his view and think that was a good thing to have done. I don't think you have re-read the article carefully enough to notice that the "desecration" extended beyond the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at all and with that sort of neglect request another reviewer's attention to this article. I have however changed the hook on your advice to make it suitable. Guru Noel (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on consensus; you are welcome to seek a second opinion, although I assure you that I examined the article, its claims, and its sourcing quite thoroughly. An appropriately balanced, neutral article on the topic would need to address scholars' opinions of Al-Haqim's motivations (which will probably need to address his shifting religious allegiances), such as concerns that the Holy Fire was fraudulent,[1] or that the destruction was potentially taken as a consequence of the complex Byzantine-Arab relations during the period.[2] A neutral article will also need to take a more measured approach to the chain of events connecting the 1009 destruction of the church to the First Crusade. Rodulfus Glaber probably needs to be addressed along with Adémar, and context needs to be provided for their writings (Adémar especially was prone to hyperbole or outright fabrication). The First Crusade's causes were more complex and nuanced; indeed, Al-Haqim was long dead and the church rebuilt before the Crusades were even conceived of. Not all scholars agree whether its destruction was even mentioned by Urban II at Clermont.[3] And, finally, it goes without saying that a neutral article would require neutral language. This is simply not Hitler and the Holocaust. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these helpful pointers. It is more complex than the Holocaust. I have made an attempt to incorporate a lot of this information with a new motivations section and clarified the crusades. Guru Noel (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is much improved from the state at its original DYK nomination, but I am still not comfortable approving this for DYK. I retain the belief that the title is problematic, and that some of the phrasing (especially, but not limited to, "abomination of desolation") is far from neutral. It remains my opinion that this is not suitable, but the nominator has requested a third party reviewer, and I have no objection to someone else giving the article due consideration. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable contribution Squeamish. Much appreciated. I have taken the Abomination of desolation topic up on the talk page and further discussion is welcome there, not limited to that but other possibly problematic phrasing I am open to address. I understand your concerns about title and am open to discussion about that, also the hook. This article has become a bit of a Sherlock Holmes Whodunit case since I started it. After a lot of researching it seems likely in my opinion that Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah did likely have a Christian mother and did likely execute his uncle Arsenius, Patriarch of Jerusalem as part of the "desecration" for the Holy Fire fraud on the suggestion of the disenchanted Christian monk John, making the whole matter a lot more involved than generally understood, prior to writing the article. I think this clarification of multiple complicity actually presents a great message of peace right now, with everything going on with Shi'ite Muslims and Christians in Syria. Perhaps a revised hook and some advice could put that message across on the main page to your better satisfaction? Guru Noel (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw this article on the list of older nominations and came to request it be renamed something more neutral. CF comparable neutral titles 1660 destruction of Tiberias or Destruction of Psara.184.147.131.85 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination still needs a full review, which should include coverage of the neutrality issues raised by previous reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
No, with regret. The article is new, long enough, etc.; the technical parts of the nomination check out, except for the image (which is not referred to in the hook, and seems to be a diagram that would not be my first choice). However, the concerns with neutrality are still a little much for me. The article is far too fond of "desecration" as a descriptor of what was going on, and that is a loaded term. There's actually very little content in this about the "desecration" itself, maybe 5-6 sentences. The rest is unclear, in a non-neutral fashion. Religious persecution is a terrible thing, but it isn't "desecration"; so why is a section primarily about persecution titled "wider desecration?" The title is not neutral; "destruction" would be far preferable. There has been a major effort to clean this up, and I appreciate that; but the section "arab chroniclers", far from making it neutral, just makes it more confusing; there's too many people whose positions have not been explained saying confusing things. The "Motivations" section is also dodgy; while it clearly needs to be covered, what does stoicism have to do with the destruction? Or Buddhism? The connections have not been clearly explained, and because those are presumably the more favorable interpretations of why the Caliph did what he did, they need better explanation. The hook is not neutral, either; aside from "desecration," it refers to the caliph as a "mad caliph," certainly not a universal or neutral term. I almost feel somebody should blow it up and start over, because the topic is notable, and important, and needs a good article. In essence, there is far too little core content, and far to much non-neutral commentary. If this thing is significantly improved, then a hook I would be happy with would look something like this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
ALT1 ...that the Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 1009 AD?

ALT1 would work for me if the article were written more neutrally, but I think the article needs pretty much a complete revamp for neutrality reasons. Kevin Gorman (talk)