Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oran fatwa/archive1


 * 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2017.

Oran fatwa

 * Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a 16th century fatwa during the period of persecution on Muslims in Castile (now Spain), relaxing the requirements of Muslim religious practice there given the climate of persecution. It passed GA, and I've put it up for Peer Review, which suggested me to directly nominate for FA. HaEr48 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Sistinehall.jpg needs information on the original work pictured, as Italy does not have freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . Thanks. That concept is new to me, I read up a little bit, and it looks like being a building from 1588, the Sistine Hall should be OK to photograph. I updated the file's description on Commons, please take a look and I hope my understanding is correct. HaEr48 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we just need a copyright tag for the artwork as well, indicating why it is in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl I passed this as a GA so it's great to see it at FAC. Just a few points:
 * There is probably no need for citations in the lede given that it simply duplicates prose in the main part of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't it ok to err on the side of adding citation? It will help readers locating the source of those materials HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of citations in the lede; I find them a little messy, but it's not a big deal and they are certainly not a barrier to FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd really recommend that you add the locations of the publishers of the different sources that have been cited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is citation 24 alone in being formatted differently to the others? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work, HaEr48. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk

 * I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * At first glance, some of the header titles seem too generic/vague. "Significance" or some such would say much more about the relevant section than "Analysis". "Context" also seems inferior to for example "Background".
 * Did a series of changes reorganizing the header and renaming the title. Is this better now? More suggestions welcome. HaEr48 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You could give the year in the caption of te first painting.
 * Added (it was from 1873) HaEr48 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Any pictures of a copy? Would be PD, since it is 2D.
 * I agree it would be awesome, but unfortunately I haven't seen any picture of the actual copy in my sources. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Previous opinions" Could be renamed "Previous Islamic opinions" for clarity.
 * Done HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "As the Christian conquest of Iberia " Why not Christian reconquest?
 * I use the term "reconquista", but it appears that the idea of it as a "reconquest" is somewhat problematic (see Reconquista for example). I tried to stay away from that by just using "conquest". HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps state when the reconquest began?
 * There doesn't seem to be any clear-cut date where Reconquista is supposed to start (for example, the lead of Wikipedia's article on Reconquista mention 711, 718, and 722, all without any citation). But what matters for the population trajectory is that it seemed to accelerate beginning from the 12th century, reworded the paragraph to highlight that. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Morisco, fatwa, and other terms that are only explained in the intro should also be explained at first mention in the article body.
 * Explained Morisco in body. Re "fatwa", it's hard to find where to insert that explanation in the body. First few mentions are in form of "Oran fatwa" or "the fatwa", which became awkward to insert. If you have a good idea feel free to add it or point it out to me. Otherwise, hopefully the description as "Islamic legal opinion" in lead suffices? HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see citations in the intro were already discussed, but at least make sure no citations are only found there.
 * Done. HaEr48 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Thus, the author is often referred to as "the Mufti of Oran" and the document to be called "the Oran fatwa"" Something seems odd here.
 * replaced "to be" with "is". HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "and instructed them make up" A "to" missing?
 * Done. HaEr48 (talk)
 * " to replace the ritual ablution" You give the Arabic word in parenthesis for other terms, why not here (wudu)?
 * Done. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "as long as the Muslims did not intend to make use of them" What is meant bu this? What other use do these things have than to be consumed?
 * The wording "make use of" is from Harvey p.61, but I checked Rosa-Rodríguez uses "take advantage" which sounds better, so replaced it. Does it make sense now? HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "The other three were translations in Spanish" To Spanish?
 * Ok. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Any relation to taqiya? Seems very similar, if so, could be stated.
 * It does sound similar to me, but the sources I read it don't link them together, so I worry mentioning it here may be WP:OR. I found this which mentioned Taqiyya, but it is in Spanish (which I don't read) and the Spanish abstract says that the term taqiyya "is not found in the writings of the Morisco", so probably that's another dead end? I guess taqiyya is more of an important concept for Shias, but the Spanish Muslims were Sunni, so.. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ulama and nisbat could be explained. Perhaps even sharia; many have heard the word, but may not know its meaning. Same with hadith.
 * Added explanation of Ulama, nisba, sharia and hadith at first mention of each. HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems like an omission that no modern analyses (or any, for that matter) by Muslim writers are mentioned, I'm sure Harvey and Stewart can't be the only scholars who have discussed the issue? I think it would be needed for comprehensiveness.
 * There are many other scholars who discussed the issue (I added some content citing Rosa-Rodriguez and Garcia-Arenal) but all of the references I found in English are from scholars of Spanish Muslim history, not from Islamic religious scholars. Possible explanation: (1) it was such a long time ago so it's mostly interesting as part of history (hence mostly historians discuss it, not modern religious scholars) (2) Muslim religious scholars might write in Arabic or other languages, which I don't read (3) the fatwa contradicts the predominant opinion (discussed in "Previous Islamic legal opinions" section), so maybe while it was popular among the crypto-Muslims in spain, it was not so popular among the religious authorities elsewhere. HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "such as worshipping as Catholics" This is the only time Catholics are mentioned. Elsewhere you just say Christians.
 * Good catch, done. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "The fatwa has been described as the "key theological document" to understand the practice of Spanish Muslims " Only mentioned in the intro, which should have no unique info. It should be stated in the article body as well, with in-text attribution, since it is a direct quote.
 * Added explanation of the "key theological document" quote in the "Scholarly analysis" section, quoting some scholars who stressed its importance. HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. Give me some more time to address your other points. HaEr48 (talk)
 * addressed all your points. Let me know if I miss anything. HaEr48 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - all looks good to me now. If any later Islamic opinion can be found, it would of course be nice to add. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Syek88
This is really good, thank you. A few points: Syek88 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be good to pick up the point explicitly that Harvey makes on p. 64 that the fatwa had no discernible extra-Iberian impact. The article implies that it didn't, but the evidence seems strong enough to say so expressly.
 * Added a paragraph to that effect in the "Impact in Spain" section. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "After the forced conversion was extended to the Crown of Aragon in the 1520s, the fatwa circulated there, too." - Harvey is less certain about this than you are, using the qualifier "reasonable to assume".
 * Good catch, I overlooked that qualifier by Harvey. Added a "likely" qualifier, would that do? "reasonable to assume" sounds like an author stating his view (vs an encyclopedia article) so I feel I should avoid that phrase. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Footnotes 95 to 97 of Stewart's article look like they could be interesting and potentially relevant texts, comparing the Oran fatwa with the prevailing Maliki view. Might it be worth mentioning that there is scholarly debate about the extent to which the Oran fatwa is a direct and personal rebuttal of al-Wansharisi? Stewart's fairly balanced view (pp. 299-300) seems to be that it probably was, and that moreover a rebuttal of such a senior cleric was a very bold thing to do, which all appears interesting and relevant.
 * Expanded one of the paragraph to note Wansharisi's seniority and Stewart's view that the fatwa was a rebuke against him. The texts in those footnotes are in Spanish (which I don't read), and Stewart's descriptions of them are too short for me to understand the debate properly, so I'm not sure if I can go there. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We get given Harvey's full name and link right at the end of the article but on two or three earlier occasions he is just "Harvey".
 * We get "L. P. Harvey" with wikilink at the authorship section, which is the first mention of his name. Also, should I expand to "Leonard Patrick Harvey" (his full name)? In his works he just use the "L. P. Harvey" initial, I assume this is the more natural name to use in the article. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-thought review,. Hope my updates addressed your feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - they most certainly do. Thank you again for this article. This is one of those rare pages that exemplifies Wikipedia's greatest strength: nowhere else could an amateur researcher find, in one place, the information you've been able put together. Syek88 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

 * What engvar are we using? I see "emphasised" and "materialize"; perhaps other discrepancies. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's use UK English? My brain is dominated by neither UK or US spellings, so sometimes I mix them up without realizing. I spot checked (with the help of browser's Ctrl+F) and updated some, please point out or update if you find more discrepancies. HaEr48 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes

 * , I notice you commented on citations, did you perform (or are you comfortable performing) a full source review for reliability as well as formatting?
 * , as this is your first FAC (correct me if I'm wrong) I'd also like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all newbies to jump through. Like the source review mentioned above, this could be performed by someone who has already commented on the article here, or else you can make a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, 21:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Rose (talk • contribs)
 * On the second point, I read the Stewart and Harvey sources carefully. They are the principal sources used. I can vouch that they are accurately represented (subject to my actioned comments above) and that there is no close paraphrasing. Syek88 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Does 's comment (Thanks, Syek!) above suffice, or do I still need to make a request at WT:FAC? HaEr48 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think that will do, tks. Cheers, 23:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: (Recused as co-ordinator) I just read through this with a view to promoting, but noticed it needed a source review. However, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and am more than happy to support, particularly as this period of history is always one I've found interesting. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review: All sources look reliable and correctly formatted. I would suggest, for consistency, either linking all the publishing locations or none; we currently have a mixture. Otherwise sources OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The mixture is because some locations are mentioned multiple times (e.g. Chicago, Leiden). Modified now to make them consistetnly shown at the locations' first occurence. HaEr48 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment
Hi HaEr48, I'm going to promote this but pls note you have some duplinks that should be reviewed to see if they're really necessary, given the article isn't particularly long. You can use this script to highlight the duplicates. Cheers, 23:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.