Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/The supplication of Abu Hamzah al-Thumali

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Allen3 talk 13:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Supplication of Abu Hamza al-Thumali edit

(
)

Created by Saff V. (talk). Self-nominated at 15:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

  • new enough, long enough, inline citations and refs checks as well. Good to go. I suggest using the original hook.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There's currently no in-line citation on the fact that Zayn al-Abidin narrates the Dua, which is required by DYK criteria. ~ RobTalk 15:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13:There are several in-linecitation in the article that indicate the hook is correct (Ref 1,2,3,and 4).Saff V. (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Saff V.: The only mention of Zayn al-Abidin in the article is in the first sentence of the section "The narrator", and this sentence does not have an in-line cite. The DYK criteria requires an in-line cite no later than the end of the sentence that contains the hook fact. Also, now that I'm looking at this more closely, the article appears to say in the lead that Abu Hamza al-Thumali narrated this Dua, which would contradict the hook fact. This apparent contradiction would need to be resolved before this hook runs (or the hook updated, if you intended for al-Thumali to be in the hook). ~ RobTalk 10:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13:You nominated two issues. The first is unclear for me. Is it your mean :"there is no source to establish the Zayn al-Abidin is a narrator of supplication? If your answer is yes, I try to find reliable source but we can use ALT1 as hook. Is not it? Abot the apparent contradiction, you are right. For first time, Zayn al-Abidin read this supplication, then Abu Hamza learnt it from Imam and conveyed to other. So my question is that who is the narrator?Imam or Abu hamza.Can you clear to me the meaning of narrator!Saff V. (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It doesn't necessarily have to do with whether you have a source that supports it, just that the information doesn't appear in the article with an in-line citation. If you wanted to do the narrator hook, you would need to put that fact in the article and provide a source that supports it at the end of the sentence where you put the fact. As for ALT1, the fact that Zayn al-Abidin invocated it is in the article and cited, but you would need to add the fact that he was the fourth Shia Imam to the article with a cite. ~ RobTalk 10:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13:Can you clear to the meaning of in-line citation? What would I do to resolve the problem? If I put the source after the fact, the problem is solved or not? Do I nominated to the hook in another place of the article except of lead? Please check the recent changes. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In-line citation means the numbered citations in the article (i.e. the numbered references that are "in-line" with the text). With the recent changes, ALT 1 is good to go. AGF on the foreign language source with regards to when he invocated the dua. ~ RobTalk 14:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've pulled the hook from prep; the article needs a thorough copyedit before it can be featured on the main page. The final paragraphs of the "Chain of authority" and "Reception" are particularly opaque. I would like to strongly recommend that "invocated" not be used in the ALT1 hook (and article, since the hook is taken directly from it), since the verb "invocate" is listed by dictionaries as "archaic" and there is probably a better way to phrase it so people won't stumble over an obsolete word. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • From my point of view, this is barely English. It needs serious work and anyone who was involved with accepting it for main page inclusion should take a second look. Seriously, what the hell does "advised to croon a little part of dua with feeling and meditate upon its Words. He nominated that don’t read fast this meaningful supplication and think a bout it" mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Article has received its copyedit, and Saff V. has made a number of edits subsequent to that. Reviewer should check that previous issues raised here have been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Article is long enough and new enough. The copy edits helped. The text is written neutrally with no copyright vios detected. Image is fair use. QPQ not needed. ALT1 has inline citations, although one citation appears to be the text to the supplication rather than a reference to the fact that it was invoked by Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin. The second citation links to a site in a language I do not speak, so I could not confirm the citation. Perhaps someone else should double check this point. Also, in a discussion previously, there was a question about whether the word "invocated" should be used in ALT1. That hasn't been yet addressed. SojoQ (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The first citation requires you to join the site to download the cited document so I couldn't confirm it; the second one has the information in the hook at the top except it only mentions dawn ("the time of beginning of the fast"), so the hook should be altered is that cite is relied on; not sure how far any of the sites are deemed reliable sources though. Belle (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Corinne, main editor of the article, stated that: "the article looks good now." You can see in my talk page.Saff V. (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In response to Saff. V.'s comment just above, I have to make clear that I mostly edit to correct errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, text formatting, word usage, sentence flow, and paragraph cohesion. I don't know much about references and citation styles, so other editors will have to speak to these. Corinne (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to check the outstanding issues; Belle hasn't edited in two weeks, and may not be able to get back to this review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
As BabbaQ noted, article is new enough, long enough, and has inline citations.
  • In the last sentence of the article ("He recommended reading this meaningful supplication slowly and thinking about it as one reads.") the word "meaningful" seems editorial enough to compromise NPOV. I think it should be either quoted and attributed, or replaced with a more neutral word.
  • Perhaps I'm missing something (very possible, as I am not well-versed in Islam) but the source cited for the phrase "Imam al-Sajjad, the fourth Shia Imam" seems to identify 'Ali Zain al-Abidin as the fourth Imam. If these are two names for the same person I believe a source should be cited establishing that.
  • Imam al-Sajjad and Ali Zayn al-Abidin are one person. I replaced all Imam al-Sajjad by Ali Zayn al-Abidin.Saff V. (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Of the sources cited for the remainder of that sentence ("invoked the supplication of Abu Hamza al-Thimali every night or dawn during Ramadan.") the first one appears to be just a rendering of the supplication, and does not seem to mention when the supplication was invoked. I searched the book for "morning" and "evening" but could not find substantiation of the claim.
  • The second source cited for the timing of the invocation of the supplication seems to be in Persian. However, Google Translate was of no help as there does not appear to be content on the page. I'm afraid I can't give this source an AGF pass, Saff V., given the issues with the other sources cited for the hook.
There appear to still be sourcing issues with the hook. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
A reminder, Saff V.: there are yet issues with this nomination which you must resolve. Specifically:
  • In the last sentence of the article ("He recommended reading this meaningful supplication slowly and thinking about it as one reads.") the word "meaningful" is editorial enough to compromise NPOV. It should be either quoted and attributed, or replaced with a more neutral word.
  • You had listed the incorrect page number for the Islamic Duas Volume II source. I paged through the book until I found the substantiation, and corrected the reference from page 20 to page 8. If you'd just said it was at the beginning of the section, that would have made things much easier. So. That takes care of citing the hook fact in the body of the article; however, that source is not cited in the lead, as required for DYK. I still can't get any useful output from Google translate on the noormags.ir or followislam.net sources, so those two are not sufficient for the lead.
Thank you for clarifying the identity of Imam al-Sajjad / Ali Zayn al-Abidin, both here and in the article. Once the remaining issues above are addressed this nomination can proceed. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 23:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • GrammarFascist, so long as the hook fact is given a source citation by the end of the sentence in which it occurs in the body of the article, it doesn't need to also have an identical citation in the lede. I've seen a mention of this duplicate lede cite once or twice lately, but it's the first time in my experience in four years here at DYK. If this is a highly controversial fact or a quote, then it should be cited in both places per general Wikipedia guidelines, but I don't believe it needs to otherwise. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised to hear that the lead fact being cited in the lead if mentioned there is not a requirement, BlueMoonset, as Daniel Case had left me with the opposite impression here. At the moment the hook fact is cited to two sources in the lead, but neither is in English; in the body of the article, there is an English-language source already cited for the same fact, and one of the non-English sources is repeated. As a matter of good practice, I still advocate for the English-language source to be among the sources cited for this fact in the lead, since that would be the source most accessible to the greatest number of readers of the article. But it would be good to clarify whether hook facts need to be cited in the lead if mentioned there; shall we take that question to the talk page? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 10:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in the DYK various guidelines that says the hook needs to be cited in the lead. I've had that same thing happen to me on a very early review. WP:LEADCITE says to avoid redundant citations, and then says the need should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Most articles don't have sourcing in the lead, unless it is something exceptional that's likely to be challenged. — Maile (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes, I know, I saw Daniel Case's comment there; as I noted above, it was the first time I'd seen that request. I'm not sure whether it's a necessary extension of the WP:DYK Eligibility criteria, 3 and 3b, which doesn't say the first time or every time, just that it must happen in the article. If you want to go to the DYK talk page for a clarification you're welcome to; I'm feeling burned by that place at the moment, so I don't plan to participate. However, if the facts in the lede have already been given inline citations, except for the English language source, then I'm perfectly comfortable with you asking for that one to be added. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Since I've been pinged ... Years ago, sometime so long ago I forgot when or on which hook, someone asked me to cite the hook fact when it appeared in the lede, making it seem like it was a matter of DYK policy at the time. I was somewhat surprised to learn recently that it is not, since I think it a very sound requirement when you're using that fact to draw clicks to the article from the Main Page.

Yes, LEADCITE is inconclusive. This is one of those cases it leaves up to the editors involved, for exactly this reason. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your input, Maile and BlueMoonset. I agree with what I think Maile is saying, namely that WP:LEADCITE is inconclusive. If Saff V. wants a definitive consensus, we can go to the talk page, but it's true that the atmosphere is somewhat tense there at the moment. Perhaps Saff V. won't object to just including the English-language citation along with the others already cited in the lead. If they do object, we can discuss it.
  • There also remains the issue of the word "meaningful" not being NPOV. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset and GrammarFascist Add a source citation at the end of the lead sentences is not necessary and is necessary for challenging sentences. I solved the issues that you mentioned.Saff V. (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Saff V., thank you for responding. I agree that including the English citation in the lead is not required (merely good practice) so if that were the only remaining issue the nomination would pass.
I see you have added quotation marks and a citation to the sentence containing "meaningful". However, the closest thing I see to the word meaningful in the source cited is the sentence "Nowhere are we required to make a rapid reading of this lengthy supplication without pondering over its meaning." However, the context of that sentence does not allow us to stretch the meaning of the word "meaning" to suggest "meaningful". Perhaps your translation of the Persian original does suggest that reading, but in this case as the source includes an English translation I think we have to go with that translation. Please cite a source that uses the word "meaningful", or choose a different adjective for that sentence — significant, for example, would be acceptable, as the du'a was recited repeatedly by the fourth Shia imam and was commented upon by Ayatollah Khomeini (and both those facts are cited), thus establishing its significance. Thanks in advance, GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@GrammarFascist:About word of "meaningful": I checked it with source and then removed the word from the sentence. Therefore, this issue solved. About the time of recitation: in reference mentioned clearly the time of recitation. We read in source: during the month of Ramadan, Imam Sajjad used to spend a greater part of the night in prayers and when dawn would approach he would recite the supplication. Time of recitation wrote correctly in the article and your issue not enter.Saff V. (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, removing the word "meaningful" has resolved the sole outstanding issue. (I had already resolved the apparent lack of a source for when the du'a was recited, by finding the correct page number myself, Saff V. Sorry for not making it clearer that was no longer an issue, and thanks for your patience.) And with that this DYK is finally good to go! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@GrammarFascist:Thanks a lot.Saff V. (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_supplication_of_Abu_Hamzah_al-Thumali&oldid=1022966209"