Talk:Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for taking on this review! I was still copy-editing it a little, but I'm done now. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * Spot checks:
 * "The Kitāb al-Haft wa-l-aẓilla ('Book of the Seven and the Shadows'), also known as Kitāb al-Haft al-sharīf ('Noble Book of the Seven') or simply as Kitāb al-Haft (Book of the Seven'),[i] 8th–11th centuries, is perhaps the most important work attributed to al-Mufaddal." is sourced to this source, which source does not appear to support the " ('Book of the Seven and the Shadows'), also known as Kitāb al-Haft al-sharīf ('Noble Book of the Seven') or simply as Kitāb al-Haft (Book of the Seven'),[i] 8th–11th centuries," part and is only slightly supporting the "is perhaps the most important work attributed to al-Mufaddal" (I'm assuming that "Mofażżal b. ʿOmar Joʿfi" is just another transliteration of the article's subject's name.) as I'm assuming that the source's "Most famous among these is the Ketāb al-haft wa’l-aẓella" is supposed to support "is perhaps the most important work attributed to al-Mufaddal"?
 * "but the text likely goes back to the 9th century and perhaps even to al-Mufaddal himself" is sourced to this source p. 192 which does support the "perhaps even to al-Muffaddal" part but I'm not seeing the "likely goes back to the 9th century" in the source on page 192?
 * "In four 'sessions' (majālis), Ja'far argues that the cosmic order and harmony which can be detected throughout nature necessitates the existence of a wise and providential creator" is sourced to this source p. 184 where "In four "sessions" or discourses (majlis), al-Sadiq expounds on the necessity of God's existence as dictated by the order, harmony and wisdom evident in the creation of humankind, the animal kingdom, the cosmic environment in which they find themselves, and in the presence of "natural disasters"." which probably mostly supports it, although I would argue that "wise and providential" is not supported by this source (and strikes me as a bit POV)
 * I'll stop here and we can sort these out and spot check a few other spots if needed (I'm not convinced that I'm actually seeing issues rather than just me not being as familiar with the subject so I'm missing information in the sources) before continuing on with the review. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for these spotchecks (I've numbered them in your comment for easier reference). Here are my replies:
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * Spot checks:
 * "The Kitāb al-Haft wa-l-aẓilla ('Book of the Seven and the Shadows'), also known as Kitāb al-Haft al-sharīf ('Noble Book of the Seven') or simply as Kitāb al-Haft (Book of the Seven'),[i] 8th–11th centuries, is perhaps the most important work attributed to al-Mufaddal." is sourced to this source, which source does not appear to support the " ('Book of the Seven and the Shadows'), also known as Kitāb al-Haft al-sharīf ('Noble Book of the Seven') or simply as Kitāb al-Haft (Book of the Seven'),[i] 8th–11th centuries," part and is only slightly supporting the "is perhaps the most important work attributed to al-Mufaddal" (I'm assuming that "Mofażżal b. ʿOmar Joʿfi" is just another transliteration of the article's subject's name.) as I'm assuming that the source's "Most famous among these is the Ketāb al-haft wa’l-aẓella" is supposed to support "is perhaps the most important work attributed to al-Mufaddal"?
 * "but the text likely goes back to the 9th century and perhaps even to al-Mufaddal himself" is sourced to this source p. 192 which does support the "perhaps even to al-Muffaddal" part but I'm not seeing the "likely goes back to the 9th century" in the source on page 192?
 * "In four 'sessions' (majālis), Ja'far argues that the cosmic order and harmony which can be detected throughout nature necessitates the existence of a wise and providential creator" is sourced to this source p. 184 where "In four "sessions" or discourses (majlis), al-Sadiq expounds on the necessity of God's existence as dictated by the order, harmony and wisdom evident in the creation of humankind, the animal kingdom, the cosmic environment in which they find themselves, and in the presence of "natural disasters"." which probably mostly supports it, although I would argue that "wise and providential" is not supported by this source (and strikes me as a bit POV)
 * I'll stop here and we can sort these out and spot check a few other spots if needed (I'm not convinced that I'm actually seeing issues rather than just me not being as familiar with the subject so I'm missing information in the sources) before continuing on with the review. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for these spotchecks (I've numbered them in your comment for easier reference). Here are my replies:


 * 1. I have placed explanatory footnotes after each listed work noting the editions of the original Arabic text. The verification for the various (Arabic) titles was present in the footnote (currently [i]; Asatryan 2017, pp. 18–19), which I'll quote here:
 * Asatryan 2017 refers to the work as Kitāb al-Haft throughout, which made me think it worth to mention that title too. The English translations of the titles are my own per No original research. The verification for "8th–11th centuries" is found in the 'Composition and legacy' section of the article which discusses the dating at some length (quick online verification here, ctrl-f "composed roughly between the 8th and 11th centuries"; Asatryan also mentions Tāmir's and Ghālib's different titles there).
 * Yes, Mofażżal b. ʿOmar Joʿfi is just another transliteration: almost every source uses its own romanization/transliteration system, whereas we use a system based on the most common traits of the various systems used in English-language sources, as laid out in WP:MOSAR.
 * The Gleave ref was indeed only cited to support the "perhaps the most important work" bit through Gleave's . I have now added Asatryan 2017 p. 16 to that (who says that this work stands out from the rest of the ghulat corpus and that its study is central to understanding the history of the ghulat more broadly), as well as an inline citation directly verifying the date and various titles of the Kitab al-Haft.
 * The Gleave ref was indeed only cited to support the "perhaps the most important work" bit through Gleave's . I have now added Asatryan 2017 p. 16 to that (who says that this work stands out from the rest of the ghulat corpus and that its study is central to understanding the history of the ghulat more broadly), as well as an inline citation directly verifying the date and various titles of the Kitab al-Haft.


 * 2. I agree that this is a bit thin, based as it is on an interpretation of the source, but as I'll explain the interpretation is not far-fetched. The 'likely goes back to the 9th century' bit here is based on Turner 2006 speaking about the raj'a narrations in the discussed work as rooted in second- or third-century Hijri calendar (AH) (= eighth- or ninth-century CE) ghulat ideas. The cited p. 192 has:
 * Part of this is also context: the ghulat still flourished in the ninth century, but most texts written in that period were attributed to eighth-century figures such as al-Mufaddal. Unless there is specific evidence pointing to a later date, the presumption is normally that such texts date to the eighth or ninth centuries (see e.g. Turner 2006, p. 185 about the Kitab al-Haft: ). The later Twelver authorities who marginalized the ghulat and whom Turner 2006 speaks about in the p. 192 quote above are 10th/11th century, which generally makes 10th-century datings less likely (cf. Turner 2006 p. 184 on two other Mufaddal texts Part of the problem here is that Turner 2006 does not write in a particularly clear or transparent way. But given the fact that he actually argues for a possible authenticity of the (which is rare among scholars for this type of text), I think it should be clear that in his opinion it's an early text, if not dating to the 8th-century Mufaddal himself then probably to the 9th century (I originally had 'perhaps even to the 8th-century al-Mufaddal himself' here, but later struck 'the 8th-century' while copy-editing). Again, Turner does not literally say this, which renders it an interpretation of the source, but it's not a forced interpretation in my view. Nevertheless, I'm not wedded to the 'likely goes back to the 9th century' bit, which can easily be left out if you think that is better.
 * Part of this is also context: the ghulat still flourished in the ninth century, but most texts written in that period were attributed to eighth-century figures such as al-Mufaddal. Unless there is specific evidence pointing to a later date, the presumption is normally that such texts date to the eighth or ninth centuries (see e.g. Turner 2006, p. 185 about the Kitab al-Haft: ). The later Twelver authorities who marginalized the ghulat and whom Turner 2006 speaks about in the p. 192 quote above are 10th/11th century, which generally makes 10th-century datings less likely (cf. Turner 2006 p. 184 on two other Mufaddal texts Part of the problem here is that Turner 2006 does not write in a particularly clear or transparent way. But given the fact that he actually argues for a possible authenticity of the (which is rare among scholars for this type of text), I think it should be clear that in his opinion it's an early text, if not dating to the 8th-century Mufaddal himself then probably to the 9th century (I originally had 'perhaps even to the 8th-century al-Mufaddal himself' here, but later struck 'the 8th-century' while copy-editing). Again, Turner does not literally say this, which renders it an interpretation of the source, but it's not a forced interpretation in my view. Nevertheless, I'm not wedded to the 'likely goes back to the 9th century' bit, which can easily be left out if you think that is better.


 * 3. Turner 2006's would at least account for my 'necessitates the existence of a wise creator', no? I think I added the 'providential' bit after re-reading Chokr 1993, who notes that  As I also noted in the last paragraph of this section, the enemies cited in this work are  (Chokr 1993). In the Stoicizing type of theology the work is inspired on, providence is a central characteristic of God (see, e.g., ). Our article on the teleological argument (which happens to be a GA) also repeatedly speaks about the wisdom and providence of God, even pointing out that Averroes called the teleological argument the 'argument from providence'. As for the 'wise creator' bit, discussing the same text but as attributed to al-Jahiz, Daiber 2014 pp. 171–173 says:
 * I have now added Chokr 1993 and Daiber 2014 to the reference so as to provide a more direct verification.
 * I have now added Chokr 1993 and Daiber 2014 to the reference so as to provide a more direct verification.


 * I hope this assuages your concerns. I've noticed that the more I have read about a subject and the more I know about it, the more difficult it is to create inline citations in appropriate places which cover everything that is said in that place. Summarizing the points of view emanating from a range of sources each taken as a whole is very different from placing fact A from page Q in source X after fact B from page R in source Y, as is the more usual wiki-style.
 * But it pays off to read to the whole paper or monograph, and to read more than one of these. Since content needs to be verifiable rather than verified, I think this approach is also okay by WP policies. On the other hand, one of the most important purposes of a review is to verify whether the content is supported by the sources cited (and I highly appreciate that you actually take the time to do that!). This is undoubtedly made more difficult by incorporating in each sentence context from many sources and/or from different places within one source. In my opinion it makes for a better article, but also for a more difficult review. So please bear with me; we're both going to spend a little more time on this than is perhaps usual.
 * If you think more spotchecks are needed I'd be happy to take them on. I'll probably come up with similar explanations as above, but there may well be cases where I just strayed too far from the source, so if you still feel that way after my explanations please do tell so we can correct them.
 * Thanks again for your time, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - husband came home for five days so I was ... busy. The above assuages my concerns about sourcing/paraphrasing/etc. So on to the rest of the review! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was getting a bit anxious (especially given the earlier WP:V concerns), but I'm glad it turned out alright, and it seems to me that a review from you is worth the wait! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * General:
 * I noticed several instances of duplicate linking - suggest an audit to make sure that the article doesn't have overlinking of some terms (I noted heresiographer which is linked in the Life section and in the other ghulat works section)
 * I generally take a rather liberal approach to MOS:DUPLINK. My interpretation of the clause that a link is that if a link would substantially help the reader to either understand the content (e.g., for unfamiliar terms) or find more information providing context (e.g., on relatively obscure historical figures), and if it has not been linked yet in the same top-level section (and so may well be the first time the reader crosses the term if they jumped to that section, as many readers do), it should generally be linked, regardless of how many times it has been linked before. Unsurprisingly then, running User:Evad37/duplinks-alt uncovered quite a few duplicate links, but only some of which actually constituted over-linking in my view. These duplicate links I removed as obvious mistakes on my part, but I left in the following:


 * Ghulat, linked in the Life section and at the start of both the Kitab al-Haft and the Kitab al-Sirat sections; the latter two are sections many readers are likely to jump to, where the link provides crucial enough context to stay
 * Ja'far al-Sadiq, linked in the Life section, in the Kitab al-Haft section, and at the beginning of the Mu'tazili-influenced works section; the latter two are sections many readers are likely to jump to, where the link provides crucial enough context to stay
 * Nusayris, linked in the Life section and in the Kitab al-Haft section; readers are likely to jump to the latter section and the link provides crucial context
 * Seven heavens, linked in the Kitab al-Haft and in the Kitab al-Sirat sections (previously twice in the latter section, but one link has since been removed ), both sections where readers are likely to jump to and where the link provides crucial context
 * Metempsychosis, linked in the Kitab al-Haft and in the Kitab al-Sirat sections, both sections where readers are likely to jump to and where the link provides important context
 * Bab (Shia Islam), linked in the Life section and in the Kitab al-Sirat section; readers are likely to jump to the latter section and the link provides crucial context
 * Hadith and Musa al-Kazim, both are linked in the Life section and in the Mu'tazili-influenced works section; readers are likely to jump to the latter section and both links provide important clarification/context
 * al-Najashi, linked in the life section, in the Other ghulāt works section, and in the Mu'tazili-influenced works section (previously twice in the latter section, but one link has since been removed ); the latter two are sections many readers are likely to jump to, where the link provides crucial enough context to stay
 * Tawhid, linked in the Life section and in the Tawḥīd al-Mufaḍḍal section; readers are likely to jump to the latter section, where it provides crucial context
 * Heresiographer and Heresiography (both redirects to the same page, and therefore not picked up by Evad37's duplinks-alt script; I hope there are not too much others like these): linked in the life section and in the Other ghulāt works section; readers are likely to jump to the latter section (or its top-level section Ghulāt works, or the Kitab al-Haft or Kitab al-Sirat subsections above it), where it provides crucial context


 * I'd be happy to discuss any of these as to whether they are really helpful enough to be repeated, but I hope you can agree on the general principle of repeating a link whenever it is actually helpful to do so.


 * Lead:
 * Not required, but the MOS suggests a maximum of four paragraphs for the lead. The lead feels a bit large for a 3500 word article - suggest perhaps cutting the lead down a bit.
 * ✅ I have trimmed the lead a few times since I originally wrote it, but I realize it was still long. I have trimmed it some more now, taking it to 611 words/3943 characters coming from 667 words/4,328 characters (coming before that from 731 words/4,734 characters and before that from 832 words/5,324 characters).


 * My impression is that the only way to really cut it back substantially would be to remove the content summaries of the works attributed to al-Mufaddal (it's their diversity and their great need of context in each instance which renders the lead so long), but that's a step I'm not willing to take at this time. In the future either the sections on the main works should be expanded (thus also justifying the long lead) or (perhaps at a still later stage) the individual works should get their own articles and only be summarized in this article, at which point the description of their content could also be removed from the lead here. This may take some time, given the fact that this is a heavily under-developed topic on Wikipedia.


 * An example: "As a money-changer (ṣayrafī), al-Mufaddal" is there a reason we need the translation? I can see using the Arabic for technical terms for the various writings/etc but I can't see how knowing the Arabic for money-changer helps my understanding of the subject. There are a lot of Arabic translations for reasonably common terms used throughout the article - a strong consideration should be given to whether any particular transliteration actually advances the common reader's knowledge ... I'm sure that much like my own medieval English history specialization, the academic literature is sprinkled with transliterations of terms into the original language (Latin in my case) but I don't use many of these in articles for Wikipedia, because they won't help the non-specialist at all and just add a level of "academicese" to an article that impedes comprehension.
 * ✅ I orginally added "(ṣayrafī)" because "al-Ṣayrafī" is sometimes given as part of his name (e.g., al-Mufaḍḍal al-Ṣayrafī, "Mufaddal the Moneychanger"), and so I thought placing it in the lead might help some readers establish that they arrived at the right article. But that use case may be too rare to justify the presence of "(ṣayrafī)" here, so I've removed it. In general, it's often hard to decide whether to use an Arabic term or not. I realize that Arabic terms may be distracting to non-specialist readers, but they may also be very helpful at times for readers who are looking for more in-depth connections. I've cut back a bit on the usage of Arabic terms, throughout the article but especially in the lead.
 * "Different interpretations exist: whereas early Imami" ... interpretations of what? this sentence does not flow well from the preceding one.
 * ✅ This is an artefact of an earlier attempt to trim the lead section. Should be fixed now.
 * "and tried to bring his followers back on the right path." rather than "right path" (which smacks a bit of putting a POV in wikivoice) I suggest we say "orthodox" or similar?
 * ✅ In the lead I have now changed the content itself of this sentence in order to better reflect the sources. That Ja'far appointed al-Mufaddal to bring Abu al-Khattab's followers back on the 'right path' is still present in the main text and in a footnote. I do think, however, that at least in the main text there is enough context to understand this as the specific Twelver Shi'i POV: it's what Twelver sources insist Ja'far ordered al-Mufaddal to do.Using a term like 'orthodox' would likely be even more problematic, because it would tend to confirm an existing misconception among the general public that Twelver Shi'ism is somehow the proper and 'orthodox' form of Shi'ism: 'orthodox' sounds like something a modern scholar might say, whereas 'right path' at least sounds as POV-ish as it actually is (most scholars today reject distinctions such as orthodox vs heterodox).For reference, what the sources have here is  (Amir-Moezzi 2013) and  (Gleave 2008–2012).
 * Suggested edits to lead (example of cutting down some):"A major part of the extant writings attributed to al-Mufaddal originated among the, an early branch of Shi'i Islam. A recurring theme in these texts is the myth of the world's creation through the fall from grace of pre-existent "shadows" or human souls whom God punished for their disobedience by casting them down into seven heavens created for this purpose. In the  (Book of the Seven and the Shadows, 8th to 11th centuries), seven primordial Adams rule over the seven heavens and initiate the seven historical world cycles . The  (Book of the Path, written c. 874–941) describes a "path"  leading believers back through the seven heavens towards God. Only those who attain a degree of religious knowledge may climb upwards on the chain of being: others are reborn into human bodies ( or metempsychosis), while unbelievers travel downwards and reincarnate into animal , vegetable, or mineral bodies .  Those who reach the seventh heaven enjoy a beatific vision of God and share the divine power to manifest  themselves in the world of matter. " which hopefully retains enough of the important bits without being so overwhelming.
 * ✅ Great suggestion! I incorporated most of it.


 * Kitab al-Sirat:
 * "This ability to manifest in human form the "Gates" in the seventh heaven share with God." something is missing from this ...
 * ✅ Changed to "This ability is shared between the "Gates" in the seventh heaven and God, who also manifests himself to the world by taking on a human form." Is this clearer? The source here (Asatryan 2017, p. 145) has
 * Other ghulat works:
 * HEre's an example of where some Arabic is useful and where other isn't: "Though mainly dealing with the actions that the Mahdi will undertake to render justice to the oppressed, the work also contains references to mainstream Shi'i ideas such as temporary marriage contracts (mutʿa), as well as to the ghulāt idea of world cycles (adwār)." The link to mut'a is one that's useful, but the "adwar" link is just added clutter, I'd suggest "mainstream Shi'i ideas such as temporary marriage contracts (mutʿa), as well as to the ghulāt idea of world cycles."
 * ✅ Removed it here and in a few other places, along with some other Arabic terms that were mere clutter. I do think that technical terms like adwār are often worth mentioning, especially if they indicate a concept that recurs across many different texts in various traditions (examples of other such terms here are, , ). So when Dawr (world cycle) has become a blue link I will probably consider putting it back, but I agree that at this time it was only cluttering the already existing text.
 * Mu'tazili-influenced works:
 * "Rather than by Shi'i doctrine, their content appears to be influenced by Mu'tazilism, a rationalistic school of Islamic speculative theology (kalām)." the first phrase appears tacked on and doesn't make any sense here...
 * ✅ Removed the tacked-on phrase and changed to "Their content appears to be influenced by Mu'tazilism, [...]".
 * "Often transmitted together in the manuscript tradition" do we have some sort of link for "manuscript tradition"?
 * Not really, unfortunately. It seems the closest we have are pages like Manuscript culture or Textual criticism, but I'm concerned that linking to these may wp:astonish more than it would clarify. I've considered for a while linking to a redirect Manuscript tradition which would lead to Manuscript for the time being, but since I'm not sure whether that topic deserves an article or even a separate article section, I've not done that either. We could simply link manuscript, but that would not seem helpful (and thus MOS:OL) in this already involved context? Not really sure what to do here, so done nothing for the time being.
 * Mostly, I understood the content - which given that it's well outside my normal editing area, is a good thing!
 * That was a major concern for me when writing this article, so I'm really very glad to hear that!
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have checked the issues I think should probably be solved with ✅, and put a before two issues of which I'm not entirely sure. For my part I do think we're good to go. Thanks again for your time, ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * These look good. I'm passing this now. I suppose I should rouse myself to write a manuscript tradition article but frankly manuscript studies is not my favorite topic (or even my 20th-favorite topic) in medieval studies, so I'll pass, I think. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)