Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Islam: The Untold Story/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 22:41, 16 January 2013 [1].

Islam: The Untold Story

[edit]

Islam: The Untold Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently received a peer review and GA review, and - to my mind - fits the necessary criteria; I also think that it would make a very nice addition to the FA collection. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why have you mentioned the mainstream media but not other media? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primarily because it is the mainstream media which is so prominent in western society, and because this particular documentary was primarily discussed in the mainstream media. Within the article, I have actually used sources from other forms of media (such as The Huffington Post, iERA and Twitter), particularly in the sections entitled "Islamic community" and "Tom Holland's response to his critics". However, from what I understand of Wikipedia policy, many forms of alternate media (such as blogs), would be inappropriate to use, because they are not considered notable. I hope that this clears up this situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ie academia just didn't bother with it. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The summary covers the meat of the programme's arguments in 4 lines, which can hardly be called comprehensive. Really neither a popular tv documentary nor a WP article about a popular tv documentary are ideal vehicles for exploring complex and controversial scholarly issues. Having seen the programme I thought it pretty superficial, and the article is, perhaps inevitably, yet more so. GA, fine, but not FA without a lot of expansion, & really that would ideally occur in an article directly on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I still don't think it is enough. I've also googled the doc & found what I thought were more insightful criticism at the other Huffington Post blog entry. I don't think Howse in the Daily Telegraph is summarized very well - his main point is missing. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Johnbod on 1b, and 1a as well; prose redundancies abound. A random prose sample:

    Tom Holland initially responded to his critics through the social website of Twitter, where he summed up the public response as "you win some, you lose some." He proceeded to published what he described as a "brief response" to his critics on the Channel 4 website, in which he stressed that the documentary was not created as a critique of Islam but as "a historical endeavour". ... He proceeded to answered some of his critics' points one by one. (So? preceding sentence says nothing, whole thing should be struck) Admitting that it was impossible to "articulate all the resonances and implications of every argument" in a 74 (missing hyphen here ) minute documentary, he directed those who wanted to learn more to his recently published book on the subject. Holland's Twitter critics also came under attack from fellow popular historian Dan Snow, who tweeted "Dear angry mad people on twitter, it is conceivable that you know more than @holland_tom & the world's leading scholars, but very unlikely".

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the read through, Sandy. I have endeavoured to remove many of these prose redundancies, which were unfortunately not highlighted in the preceding peer review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was a good first pass. I examined the prose in a different section on this re-visit:

        After security fears were raised, on 11 September 2012, Channel 4 publicly announced the cancellation of cancelled a planned screening of the film for "opinion formers" (what the heck are "opinion formers"?) at its London headquarters (who cares where it was? what is the relevance of the location?). They noted said that they were nevertheless "extremely proud" of the film and would continue to provide access to it on their website, 4oD. Their decision to cancel came under criticism from Dr (we don't do that, what is she, PhD or MD?) Jenny Taylor, the founder of Lapido Media, a consultancy specialising in religious literacy in world affairs. Invited to attend the event, Taylor described the documentary as a good historical study and its cancellation as the "appalling" result of protest whipped up by the media. She argued that in the western world, the discussion of history was a core value (how can "discussion" be a "core value"?) that had to be upheld, and that Islam should not be exempt from historical inquiry.

        One section: keep working. And are there no alternate views of the cancellation, balancing Jenny Taylor? Seems POVish to present only one voice in favor of the film. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh we have lots of opinion formers over here. No doubt on this occasion they included lots of community leaders too. The former can be described as people who have been talking heads on tv, or want to be. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I originally included the quote "opinion formers" because I was not entirely sure exactly who they were referring to. I suspect Johnbod is right however, and they were referring to other bigwigs in the television documentary industry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the lead describes Patricia Crone's work as 'controversial', but I can't see any evidence for this. Also, I think the value of an entire section about a blog posting on the EDL website is questionable. They are not 'alternate media' but a fringe campaign group with perhaps a few thousand supporters. I don't think this makes them notable commentators on the issue. Celuici (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crone's work is controversial because she rejects traditional Islamic accounts of Islam's origins quite vehemently; whereas a number of other academics (both Muslims and non-Muslims) support the traditional account, more or less. On the issue of the EDL, I concur that they are a fringe group, but if this article ignored their perspectives then no doubt other editors would assert that it failed to be comprehensive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Crone's controversialness should be verified by a source: you might be able to take one from Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Regarding the EDL –- if someone were to complain about the lack of coverage given to their views, then the onus would be on them to demonstrate the notability of those views. Linking to the EDL website can't do that, because it's not a third party source and thus doesn't tell us anything about the significance or the importance of the EDL's views. Celuici (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have JSTOR, a search on "Patricia Crone review" will leave no doubt that she continues to be highly controversial. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Islam:_The_Untold_Story/archive1&oldid=1078801607"