Template:Did you know nominations/Fatwa

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 Yoninah (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Fatwa[edit]

(
)
  • ... that several sultans in Morocco and the Ottoman Empire were deposed by a fatwa? Source: "...several Ottoman and Moroccan sultans were deposed by fatwas" ("Fatwa", in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, 2013, p. 174)
    • ALT1:... that according to some scholars Ayatollah Khomeini's proclamation condemning Salman Rushdie to death was not a fatwa? Source: "...Ayatollah Khomeini (1902–89) issued a statement calling for the execution of author Salman Rushdie for insulting Islam in his novel The Satanic Verses. Although not strictly a fatwa, this death sentence was quickly treated as such" ("Fatwa", in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, 2013, p. 174); "There are some views that deny that this actually was a fatwa, as it did not follow the classical criteria of form or function for a fatwa." (Vikør, Knut S. (2005). Between God and the Sultan: A History of Islamic Law. Oxford University Press, p. 142)
  • Reviewed: Exempt from QPQ - 1 DYK credit so far.

Improved to Good Article status by Eperoton (talk). Self-nominated at 23:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC).

Article is well sourced, and hooks are reasonably interesting. They do suggest that the reader knows what a fatwa is, before reading the article, however. QPQ not required. Hooks are cited. No copyvio. See below for more comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Definitely newly promoted enough and long enough. An Earwig check is a liiiiitle iffy. Specifically, "allowed a female convert to Islam to remain married to her non-Muslim husband, based in part on the existence of European laws and customs which guarantee women the freedom of religion" If the source is somehow freely licensed or public domain, then fine enough. Otherwise that's stretching the limits of fair use a bit too far. Similarly, (though Earwig doesn't pick this bit up) the opening sentence is nearly verbatim from the Princeton Encyclopedia source. The hook, is exactly verbatim from the Princeton Encyclopedia source. So these really need to be quoted or they need to be reworded. Fair use gives us leeway with attributed quotes, but not with unatributed ones. Additional manual spot checks only picked up one additional issue. A large portion of this was either copied to Fatwa from Mufti or visa versa. But I don't see on either article, either in edit summaries or on the talk page where the original is attributed. This is required by the CCBYSA license, and so it needs to be sorted out which is the original and which is the copy, so we can make sure we're in compliance with WP:COPYWITHIN.
User:Lee Vilenski it looks like we had an edit conflict, but you probably want to revisit your approval given the above. GMGtalk 14:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: thanks for the closer review.

  • I have rephrased the passages underlined above.
  • For the definition, it's important to reflect the definitions found in the sources, which are themselves similar to each other. I think this one falls under: "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing."
  • I was reluctant to paraphrase those few words in the hook because I feared introducing OR. For example, one could replace "deposed" by "forced to abdicate", but it doesn't quite mean the same thing. I feel this is also in the area of "limited number of ways to say the same thing". P.S. On closer inspection, how about this paraphrase of the hook?
  • I contributed all the text in both Fatwa and Mufti, so my edits are the appropriate attribution.

Let me know if you still have concerns. Eperoton (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Do you think we should gloss fatwa as "(nonbinding legal opinion)" or "(nonbinding legal opinion on a point of Islamic law)" in the hooks? Eperoton (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't an opinion by definition not be legally binding? I think fatwa (legal opinion) makes sense, but It's not really something I understand entirely. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Binding legal opinions do exist in some legal systems, but we can use the shorter gloss in the hook for brevity. Eperoton (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as COPYWITHIN, unless you are positive that there were no other contributors to the duplicated content, i.e., if they were both added at the same time, then we would still need attribution. But that's really too easy, just use a WP:DUMMYEDIT on whatever article was last and say "text from this article copied from that article".
Just to be safe, I'll see if we can't get a second opinion on whether the hook runs into close paraphrasing issues. Maybe I'm over thinking it. Never hurts to ask. GMGtalk 12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Thanks, second opinion on the hook would be good. Regarding attribution, the text of both articles either came out of my sandbox or was added by me to both articles at about the same time. I do include attributions in edit summaries when I copy text with other contributors. Eperoton (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No comment on the close paraphrasing issue, but terms like "fatwa" do not need to be defined in hooks, the hook is only there to tweak interest in a topic not to define terms, if we did the latter DYK would end up looking like a dictionary extract. People who don't know what a "fatwa" is and would like to know more get to click on the link, that's the whole point. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC).

  • I agree that there is some paraphrasing that is too close to the sources. Compare for example "A mufti's understanding of the query commonly depended on their grasp of local customs and colloquial expressions" with "Such comprehension frequently depended on the muftī  's grasp of both local custom and colloquial expression". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Can you elaborate your concern, Nikkimaria? I can't quite connect it to WP:CLOP. Nothing in this sentence strikes me as a "creative expression", and as I far as I can tell, there's a limited number of ways of expressing this particular assertion without changing the meaning or using unnatural language. This is a general issue that's important for articles on contentious topics, where I tend to edit, so I want to clarify for the future. I normally try to rephrase and rearrange content as much as the subject permits, and alternate statements drawing on different sources, but no so much as to introduce OR. CLOP, and particularly WP:LIMITED, seems to be formulated in a reasonably flexible way that permits this approach. Eperoton (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. So, for example, I now rewrote this as "A mufti's understanding of the query commonly depended on their familiarity with local customs and colloquialisms", which would minimize Earwig-style issues. Does that address your concern, or do you consider any statement that conveys the meaning of a statement from the source with a similar syntactic structure to be a CLOP violation, regardless of whether it can be naturally expressed otherwise? Eperoton (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
NOCREATIVE applies to things like "X was born on 1 January 1900", when there truly is no originality in the phrasing; that's not the case with the example I've cited. If you truly cannot find an adequate way to represent such a phrase, you can always quote it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so did the rephrased version address this particular concern? Eperoton (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I'm fine to go with a light rewording just to be on the safe side.
  • ALT3... that influential Islamic jurists used fatwas to dethrone several sultans in Morocco and the Ottoman Empire?
  • It's mot much, but it does put some daylight between the hook and the verbatim text, pulling bits of content from surrounding sentences in the source. If everyone's okay with that, then I'm perfectly fine to throw a tick on it and carry on. GMGtalk 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for following up on the nomination. I've used GMG's ideas to rephrase the text of the article to a version I slightly prefer:
ALT4 ... that several sultans in Morocco and the Ottoman Empire were dethroned as a result of fatwas issued by influential jurists
but ALT3 seems close enough in meaning, as well as having the added benefit of brevity. Eperoton (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree w Eperoton that ALT4 is better because teher s a hint of an explanation what fatwa is- the point of DYK is to read the article of the term in bold font and if one gets no clue what it is one isnt pulled into it.Wuerzele (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed to check the previous issues and establish where this nomination is—whether ready to go or needing more work—including using the appropriate icon with their review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A very interesting article, which has been waiting for DYK approval for a long time! (Is it a record?) Earwig now says that copyvio is unlikely, so that issue appears to have been addressed. Starting to read, I was reminded of a news article I read a while ago, which I found again - "The fatwa hotline: 'We have heard everything' ", in The Guardian, 20 August 2016 [1]. Eperoton, I don't know if you want to include a source like that in this article - it does relate to a couple of points, though - the Role of Modern Media section (where I wonder if you could start with "Advances in communication technology and the rise of the internet", instead of "advances in print media"?) The other point it relates to is in "Social role of fatwas", where you say "Since women now represent a significant proportion of students studying Islamic law, their prominence in its interpretation is likely to rise". The Guardian article shows an example of women working as muftis, specifically for women to request fatwas from.
I think that the Salman Rushdie fatwa/not fatwa would interest people old enough to remember the incident, and a hook about rulers being dethroned would interest some readers too. Of the hooks suggested so far, I think ALT3 and ALT4 are better than ALT0, which doesn't give any clues about what a fatwa is (it could be a usurper, for example). In ALT1, I would suggest including the word "Islamic" before "scholars", as that also gives some clues. If that hook is used, there will need to be a citation immediately after "some scholars have argued that it did not qualify as one", as there currently isn't a source for that.
Eperoton, there are a few other points that strike me as possible focuses for hooks. One is where you say "Modern fatwas also deal with topics as diverse as insurance, sex-change operations, moon exploration and beer drinking", and another that there are "satellite television programs and radio shows offering call-in fatwas". Also the fatwa permitting Muslims serving in the U.S. army to participate in military action against Muslim countries would be of interest to many, I would think, and I was interested to read that Osama bin Laden was not qualified to issue fatwas or declare jihad.
What do you think? I don't want to trivialise it, but I wonder if some of these more up-to-date issues would perhaps attract readers' attention? I don't want to suggest ALT hooks myself, because then someone else would have to approve them. Would like to consider these ideas and suggest some other alternative hooks? Then I (or another editor) can think about them, and check that they're all supported by citations (of the points I've mentioned, all have citations directly after the sentence with that information except the one about participating in military action against Muslim countries). Let me know what you think! Regards, RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen: thanks for the close reading and great suggestions! I'll take a closer look and list some alternative hooks by the end of the week. Eperoton (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Eperoton, it has been over a week since you posted the above. I realize that we haven't always given this timely reviewing attention here at DYK, which accounts for why the nomination is over four months old, but it is the oldest extant nom by nearly a month. Please spend some time on it over the next few days. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have gone ahead and added the source I mentioned above to the article, with some info added in the two sections I mentioned. I hope Eperoton will find my edits OK. If Eperoton isn't able to suggest alternative hooks in the next few days, I will have a go myself - which will then necessitate asking for another reviewer to approve them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the delay. Your edits look good, RebeccaGreen. I'll try to come up with some new hooks tomorrow. Eperoton (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Here are three new hooks per suggestions by RebeccaGreen.

  • ALT5 ... that modern Islamic jurists issue fatwas dealing with a range of topics as varied as Sufism, moon exploration, and mixed-gender workspaces? Source: "... in a new pattern, there is an emphasis on questions that go ... into a variety of other specialised Islamic disciplines and fields, such as Qurʾān exegesis, ḥadīth, creed (ʿaqīda), and Ṣūfism...recent research has focused on fatwā topics as diverse as insurance and sex-change operations, moon exploration and beer drinking. " (Messick, Brinkley (2017). "Fatwā, modern". Encyclopaedia of Islam (3rd ed.)); "On this particular morning the queries range from, “Are men and women allowed to work together in an office?” (yes)" (Ghafour, Hamida (2016). "The fatwa hotline: 'We have heard everything'". The Guardian) "
  • ALT6 ... that in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks a group of Middle Eastern Islamic scholars issued a joint fatwa that allowed Muslims serving in the US military to fight against Muslim states? "A fatwā issued in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States also illustrates several recent trends in iftāʿ. A few days after the attacks, a Muslim chaplain in the U.S. Army asked a group of ʿulamāʿ about the permissibility of participating in a war against Muslim countries. In response, five Middle Eastern scholars issued a joint fatwā permitting Muslim military personnel in the U.S. armed forces to participate in actions against Muslim states." (Dallal, Ahmad S.; Hendrickson, Jocelyn (2009). "Fatwā. Modern usage". The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World.)
  • ALT7 ... that when Osama bin Laden issued his 1998 fatwa proclaiming jihad against the US and its allies, many Islamic jurists stressed that he was not qualified to either proclaim jihad or issue a fatwa? "For example, in 1998 Osama bin Laden ... issued a fatwā calling for a “Jihād against Jews and Crusaders.” ... In addition to denouncing the content of this and other fatwās attributed to bin Laden, many Muslim jurists have stressed bin Laden's lack of the requisite qualifications for either issuing fatwās or declaring jihād." (Dallal, Ahmad S.; Hendrickson, Jocelyn (2009). "Fatwā. Modern usage". The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World);

RebeccaGreen, I didn't understand your objection to sourcing for ALT1. The article cites the two sources which are quoted for ALT1 above. At least some of the scholars in questions are academic rather than Islamic. Eperoton (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Eperoton, thanks for writing these 3 extra hooks. I didn't have any objections to the sourcing, it was just that I have seen some reviewers and promoters requiring citations in the article immediately after the sentence in which the hook facts are stated. I've just copied the citations to those two sources to the end of the relevant sentence, so it should be fine. We see the quoted sources here, but general readers won't. All good now, anyway! RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Approving ALT1, ALT5, ALT6, ALT7. ALT3 is fine too, I just think the others will be of more general interest. All issues addressed, and four interesting hooks to choose from. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Fatwa&oldid=916221131"