Template:Did you know nominations/The Verse of Wilayah


 * 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 Victuallers (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The verse of Wilayah

 * ... that after revealing the Verse of Wilayah, Muhammad said of Ali: "You are to me like Aaron was to Moses, except that there are no prophets after me?"


 * ALT1:... that, in the view of both Shia and Sunni scholars, the Quran's Verse of Wilayah (5:55) was revealed in honour of Ali?​

Created by Saff V. (talk). Self-nominated at 13:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article was created 27 July and nominated 29 July — article is New. It is also Long enough at (by my count) 2,490 characters.
 * Symbol question.svg There is a minor issue with the sentence "Then the prophet saw this or heard of it, a passage of the Quran was sent down upon him (5:55) showing that Ali was to prophet Muhammad as Aaron was to Moses." which has 4 sources cited to it, but of them, only one makes the Aaron-Ali comparison; it should probably be converted to a direct quote rather than the very weak paraphrase it is currently. The other three citations can be bumped earlier in the sentence to clarify what they substantiate.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg "The status and meaning of this event is a matter of discussion amongst scholars of Islam." does not appear to be supported by the citation given, though it's possible it's just over my head.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Only the first half of "Sunni and Shia scholars agree that the verse was narrated in honour of Ali but there are differing interpretations of Imamat and Willayah." is supported by the referenced text.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg other inline citations seem to be fine; however, there seem to be statements which should have sources cited but do not, such as "In Islamic text and Quran, master and friend are appropriate mean[ing]s for Wali." So, overall, i would call this an edge case on being Within policy for citations.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Hook 1 is under 150 characters, but should probably be rewritten as "... that after revealing the verse of Wilayah, the Prophet said to Ali: "You are to me like Aaron was to Moses, except that there are no prophets after me?" Unfortunately, the last clause of that hook is not supported by any citations in the article.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg ALT1 lacks those problems and is even shorter, but is not attention-grabbing, particularly to readers unfamiliar with Islam. The hooks pass on Format but need help with Content.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I'm new here (this is my first review) but as far as I can tell no QPQ has been done.
 * I don't have 5 DYK in main page and for this reason QPQ does not apply to me.Saff V. (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I'm willing to make most or all of the edits the article and hook need to pass muster. (Fixing up articles I come upon at random is what I do around here.) As I understand it, that would mean another reviewer would need to approve the nomination if/when it's ready, but that should probably happen anyway since I'm a n00b at this. —GrammarFascist (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That said, if you need me to look the thing over instead of the other guy, I can. — Llywelyn II   23:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In Incident of Ali giving Zakat while in Ruku section, all citation were used in the text. I put each of them in its place.
 * According to WP:BODY, we can't nominate to the difference in detail. Yes you are right, this sentence "there are differing interpretations of Imamat and Willayah" is not seen clearly at reference, but by checking the some parts of it such as "general meaning of mawla" part, the accuracy of sentence is appeared. It's possible that you think, I combined conclusion, but I consider WP:SYNTHESIS and just summarized some part of reference and found the source of difference.
 * Sunni and Shia scholars approve that the verse is about Ali and also both of them narrated in their books that Ali was the only person who paid charity (zakat) while bowing in prayer. Furthermore, Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Tha'labi, a Sunni scholar and writer of Tafsir al-Thalabi, narrated the story of this verse from Abu Dharr al-Ghifari. Also, Many of Sunnis scholars have narrated that the cause of Revelation of this verse is Ali, such as: Tafsir Kashaf Zimakhshari, Tafsir Tabari (volume 4, section 6, page 289), Tafsir Qartabi, Tafsir Fakhr Razi (volume12, page 28), Tafsir ibn Kathir (volume 3, page 129), Tafsir Nasafi, and etc. Therefore, issue of discussion between Muslim scholars is about choose Imam and Wali and  is not about the story of the verse.Saff V. (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Symbol possible vote.svg Hook needs editing to comply with . (Also grammar: it's "the Prophet" unless you're talking about someone named "Prophet"... but not on Wikipedia. Here, we just say Muhammad. No pbuh, no nuthin'.) — Llywelyn II   22:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, new stuff's good. — Llywelyn II   15:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Saff V. and LlywelynII, I believe "said" would be better than "quoted" in the hook, as "quoted" is generally taken to mean "repeated something said by someone else" as in a quotation. That said, "quoth" would work... but I'm not sure archaic grammar is appropriate in a hook. (Also thanks for taking over the review, LlywelynII.) — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 14:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I take over the review? I was just noting an objection and then noting that it had been taken care of.
 * Did I take over the review? I was just noting an objection and then noting that it had been taken care of.
 * Well, LlywelynII, this was my first DYK review, and I've still only done a couple others. I don't feel confident enough in my grasp of the process to make the final call on this one. So if you're willing to take it over, that would be appreciated. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 04:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, but—if you were curious—all you need to do is go down through the checklist and keep in mind the core policies that (a) make sure people aren't just making things up ( & ) or pushing agendas (,, & ); (b) make sure that it's completely accessible to our readers (, , , & ); and (c) make sure we aren't hurting anyone or getting Wikipedia sued ( articles need the other rules to be applied very strictly but that doesn't apply here). Anything minor can be swept under the carpet via  & . For instance, here, phrasing a neutral Wikipedia article as if Muhammad is capital-t, capital-p The Prophet (pbuh) is obviously not neutral. That needed fixing. At the same time, there was a lot of Arabic terminology we can assume most Americans and Australians won't be familiar with, so we want to use English in the running text ("bowing", not "rukuʿ") but we want to link to the specific article on ruku (not generic bowing) and provide the technical term in parentheses so people know it's not the generic bowing article... As an Arabic translit, rukuʿ should have its ʿ but the English word is usually spelt "surah", not "sura"... but if you don't know or notice stuff like that, it's not a big deal. DYK articles are new and we put them on the front page in part to draw in people who can help fix things like that.

The bigger problem—which might not be obvious—is that the article makes an unreferenced claim that the story of Ali and the Beggar appears in the Quran and elsewhere states that it's a story that was handed down by a chain of authority from one of Muhammad's companions (i.e., a hadith). Those are very different things. Hadiths really need a full chain of authority, but we can accept the little bit we have since it's cited. But we need a verse in the Quran for its appearance there or for that claim to be removed. Also,—and I just noticed this by accident,—there's a history of back-and-forth edits already about POV and propaganda issues, so before I OK this, I'll send a message to the complainer's talk page to let me know if he sees any problems with the current version of the page.

Those're the only major issue left with the running text, so once that's fixed with a cite or removal, I'll go ahead and look at the rest of the reviewy stuff. (GrammarFascist: one tool that's useful if you didn't know about it is Earwig's copyvio detector. Google for it if you hang around here.) — Llywelyn II   06:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear LlywelynII, thanks for your contributions in the article. You added one citation need tag in the article, I found one source for the tag. Is it valid?Saff V. (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. That source seems a bit iffy as far as scholarly weight but it's a great addition. It sources the other meanings of the word, provides a clear overview, and shows that the verse is called by this name in English. Reading though it, though, it says that only "friend", "helper", or "master" is used in understanding this verse but doesn't seem to talk about the meaning of wali in other Quranic verses, which is what that fact tag is talking about. It's ok, though: that's a minor point and not related to the hook. We removed the claim that Ali & the Beggar appear in the Quran and the guy who complained about Shia bias earlier looked through and said it's neutral enough now. Those were the only major issues so I'll go ahead and finish up. — Llywelyn II   03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Timely move out of limbo; long enough (~2850 elig. char.); edit disputes & POV issues resolved: may require more Sunni input but reflects neutral and sourced phrasing; earwig finds no copyvio, only sourced quotes. Original hook is not supported (of the two sources, one is Shia and the other doesn't connect the expression with this verse; the Hadith of Position article makes it clear that Sunnis believe the comparison with Aaron had no relation with this verse) or very interesting but ALT1 is sourced and more interesting with the inclusion of both Sunni and Shia support (which is also cited). Saff V. doesn't seem to need a QPQ. No image. ALT1 is G2G. — Llywelyn II   04:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)