Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Fatwa of Ali Khamenei against insulting revered Sunni figures

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) 05:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Fatwa of Ali Khamenei against insulting revered Sunni figures

[edit]
(
)
  • Comment: I know that I have 7 days to take action for nominating DYK, but since it is my first experince, please do not ignore me.

Created by M1nhm (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

  • @M1nhm: (QPQ not required for new DYK nominators) You must review another nomination to validate your nomination. ~ R.T.G 16:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@RTG: This appears to be the nominator's first nomination: per the rules, nominators with less than five DYK credits are exempted from the QPQ requirement. With that said, I am not very sure about either hook: the topic has potential, but each hook has inadequate wording and may need rephrasing, and I'm worried that the article itself may not pass due to possible POV concerns. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I was trying for a neutral hook. Maybe I have a line, ALT2: ... that insulting Sunni religious figures was not prohibited by fatwa in Iran until the 21st century? I only didn't review it because I couldn't neutralise the hook... ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 15:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That sounds better, but I'd like to hear from the nom first. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@RTG: The nominator hasn't edited in almost two weeks and never replied here. What can be done at this point? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5:, In fact they haven't edited since a few hours before the first ping to them from this page, except one "mobile" edit to correct a typo. Either I have scared them away from the site or, they do appear to take wikibreaks for a few days up to a couple of weeks. This editor has only edited a relatively few pages for about 1,000 edits, the largest part of which to one draft article and not many talk pages, so they are a hands off editor.
I think the done thing is to post it on Wikipedia talk:Did you know, so I've done that.
I will also suggest slightly less worded, ALT3 "... that insulting Sunni religious figures was prohibited by fatwa in Iran in the 21st century?" ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 15:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I will give the nominator one week to reply to the messages here. If there is no response, this will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Full review needed. I don't see how we can possibly close this without an actual review, since we have an ALT3 proposed that seems to be free of POV issues, and no need for a nominator response unless and until issues are found in the review that need (and do not get) such a response. Thanks to anyone who gives this a full review. (I've done a very minor edit to ALT3.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm willing to give this a full review, but it probably wouldn't hurt to at least raise some immediate comments. For example, the "Reactions" sections probably works better in prose instead of as a list. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
While this was nominated a day late (the article was created on February 6 but not nominated until February 14), we typically allow leniency for newcomers to DYK, so that will not be an issue here. What is an issue is that the article is too short: at 1363 prose characters, it's below the 1500 minimum required at DYK. (Narutolovehinata5's suggestion to turn the Reactions lists into prose is one way to solve this problem.) It is really a shame that such a basic check was not made sooner. Another significant issue, I think, is that the Reactions are uniformly positive to the Fatwa. This strikes me as a potential neutrality issue—were there no countries or significant religious figures that objected? Finally, I don't understand why there are so many sources cited in some places: for example, the text of Khamenei's statement only needs a single reliable source, not four separate sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Nominator hasn't edited in almost a month, hasn't edited the article since February, and never responded to reviewer concerns. Marking for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've converted the Reactions list into prose, making the article long enough for DYK. Now the main problem is that the section is too positive. Are there any responses to this fatwa by secular/irreligious critics? Surely a legal opinion condemning criticism of religious figures would be a trespass on the freedom of speech? feminist (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I had mentioned my concerns about the neutrality of the article above. I have just added a neutrality template to the article, which will need to be addressed before the nomination can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I won't be that surprised if it turns out there is indeed little criticism of this topic from secular (or at least non-Muslim) critics. It may likely be considered too far from home for non-Muslim audiences, resulting in little coverage. It's the same reason why Christian conservative organizations in the US tend to get outraged easier by an American celebrity than someone from Europe who is decidedly more socially liberal. I've tried Google searching for opinion pieces regarding this fatwa but most results I get that aren't overtly religious seem to concern an unrelated fatwa involving Salman Rushdie. The cited Reuters article suggests that the support this fatwa enjoyed among the Muslim world is unusually broad. This means we are unlikely to find negative coverage from non-progressive Muslims. If the reactions are primarily positive, it's not necessarily inappropriate for this article to cover primarily positive reactions. feminist (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Well if that were the case, we'd probably need a source to confirm that reactions were primarily positive, otherwise the neutrality issue still won't be resolved. And in any case, some negative comments might still be needed while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Per the Reuters source: The fatwa issued on Sept. 30 was not unusual in itself but the fact that Saudi Shi’ites publicly requested Khamenei’s opinion and that it has been so widely welcomed by Sunnis and Shi’ites suggests Iran is winning the regional clout it craves. and Khamenei’s intervention won widespread praise. feminist (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • feminist, even the Reuters article isn't universally positive, as witness the final four paragraphs. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess we should keep looking then, if that's the case. feminist (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • As the article length issue is now addressed, I will give this nomination one more week. @M1nhm: Please respond to the comments left above and leave us a notice if you will be able to fix the issues, so that this can continue. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and BlueMoonset:I am sorry for the delay, I didn't access to the net for logging on the wiki. I will do my best trying to solve problems of the article such as length or adding opposite views. For the reason, I ask you to give me time from three days up to one week. M1nhm (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist:Thanks for your precise comment. I added some opposite opinions in the article M1nhm (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:I do not agree with ALT 2. What is the POV problem with hooks that I suggested? Which words do violate POV exactly? M1nhm (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The issue was that initially, there were no negative reactions mentioned at all in the article, and it wasn't initially clear if this was simply due to them not being included or if it was because reactions were generally negative in the first place. Secondly, as for ALT0 and ALT1, not only do they have severe grammatical problems, but they are not well-written enough to count as "hooky". I took a look at the article right now, and while some of the concerns have been addressed, the text and POV issues still persist, and it would take some more work for this to be approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @M1nhm: I will give you one more week to address the remaining article issues. Failure to do so will result in the nomination being closed as unsuccessful. If you are having difficulty understanding exactly what needs to be done, you are free to ask me or any of the other commenters here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I am going to suggest new hooks what is your idea about them?
  • ALT4:... that Iran supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa against insulting revered Sunni figures was described as winning "widespread praise"? Source:reuters
  • ALT5:... that Iran supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa against insulting revered Sunni figures? Source:reuters M1nhm (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Of the two, ALT5 is probably the best option and probably the most neutral, but in any case either option would need to be copyedited for grammar. Due to the sensitivity of the topic and my reluctance to review such topics, I am deferring giving this a full review and letting any of the previous commentators give their thoughts. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I added some negative reactions in the article, In other hands, the article was copy edited but you think that article is suffering from POV issue yet. can I ask you to show me sentences that have POV issues? M1nhm (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
As you asked to edit ALT 4 and ALT5:

The grammar remains a bit iffy, I suggest you put this up at WP:GOCE/R to address the issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I nominated the article to copy edit. M1nhm (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The article was copy edited before and was approved in this page, so new review for copy edit is not necessary.M1nhm (talk)
It needed a new one because of the expansion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: In order to save time I did some copy edit in the article. Is it ok right now? M1nhm (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Not really, some of the grammar still feels at best informal. Some words such as "Secretary General" are also capitalized improperly, and there are contractions (such as "can't") that we try to avoid whenever possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and BlueMoonset: The request of a copy edit is not accepted While you insist on to copy edit, what should I do? M1nhm (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: A copy edit is done. M1nhm (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we'll need a new reviewer here, as the article subject is outside my line of expertise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • - timescale checkY; length checkY; style checkY, to be copy edited, neutral—considering the topic—cited, no close paraphrasing or copyvio issues except quotes; Hook is well within character limit (161), seems accurate, sourced, and undoubtedly of generally interest.All in all good to go with ALT6! Regards!Saff V. (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Fatwa_of_Ali_Khamenei_against_insulting_revered_Sunni_figures&oldid=1185426637"