Talk:Islam: The Untold Story

criticism from scholars

Most historians of the period scoff at Holland's work and he has been largely rejected as a charlatan by the academic community. Quoting Dan Snow's twitter in the article suggests that only crazy Muslim fundamentalists doubt Holland. Instead, the article should refer to Robert Hoyland, Fred Donner and other real historians who have critiqued Holland's rubbish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.130.236 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This particular article is devoted to this one singular documentary and the response that it received from the British press and public; response that has not involved the likes of Hoyland and Donner. It is not the place for a wider discussion of theories pertaining to the origins of Islam; there are other articles here on Wikipedia through which to do that; see for instance In the Shadow of the Sword. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I came here looking for a quick survey of the scholarly response to this Documentary. It baffles me that one might suggest (as has been suggested above) that this is not the place for such information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.0.51 (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No one suggested this isn't the place for a scholarly response to this documentary - on the contrary, Midnightblueowl said it IS the place for the response to this documentary and NOT the place for comments by scholars who were not talking about this documentary at all. The unsigned OP of this section made claims unsupported by fact; Holland's work has been supported by a number of leading religious scholars while rejected by others. There is no academic consensus at all that he is a "charlatan" or that his inquiries into the origins of Islam are "rubbish", despite what certain unsigned critics - several of whom have vandalized Holland's Wikipedia page repeatedly and accuse anyone who asks for sources for their claims of being Holland's 'promoters' or even Holland himself - continue to claim. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Blanking of additions

I recently added some content that attempted to change this article from being essentially a puff piece to one that addressed the merits of the discredited arguments. This was immediately blanked out. I am restoring now and hope that the Holland promoter responsible will address any issues here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.130.236 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You have changed sourced content to push a POV. You have made unsourced accusations against a BLP. You cannot do that. Also do not accuse people of being Holland's promoter, read WP:CIVIL Darkness Shines (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Once again, wikipedia's 'experienced' editors promote anything that will attempt to push anti-Islamic fringe theories while eliminating anything that might be based on scholarly consensus and take great offense at any attempt to alter pages away from slandering crackpot islamophobes. I'll do the wikipedia thing and never dare edit again as I'm simply an academic on the field and my knowledge is not wanted when you POV pushers have spoken. Have fun with keeping wikipedia academically unsound! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.130.236 (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You can edit when you have sources to back your edits. Until then. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines is correct in his actions here, 129.215.130.236. Holland's documentary may well be contrary to the theories of several academics operating in the field of early Islamic history, but none of those academics have openly criticised the documentary in public; hence we cannot reference them in this particular article, as per Wikipedia policy. If you are indeed an "academic on the field" as you assert, then by all means write an article for publication in a relevent magazine (i.e. not in some random web-blog), or better yet, author an academic paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in which you specifically criticise Holland and this documentary. That way we can include your views on this page; until then, I'm afraid to say that we are unable to help you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Islam: The Untold Story/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. I'll do a close read of the article over the next day or two, noting any initial issues I see here that I can't immediately fix. I'll then begin the formal checklist of the criteria. Looking forward to working with you, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

First readthrough

• "Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West (2005), and Millennium: The End of the World and the Forging of Christendom" --you might consider adding redlinks for these per WP:REDLINK. As bestsellers, it seems extremely likely that they meet our notability criteria. This isn't a factor for the GA Review either way, though.
• "both Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a practising Muslim who teaches Islamic studies at the George Washington University, Washington D.C., and Dr. Patricia Crone," -- going from their Wiki articles, Nasr and Crone appear to both be professors with PhDs; it would be best to call them both professor or both "Dr."
• "attention-seeking, neo-Conservative, Niall Ferguson lookalike" -- This isn't a factor for a GA Review, but note that the MOS all but forbids wls in quotations at MOS:QUOTE.
• "exclaimed " -- Crace doesn't seem to literally exclaim this (using an exclamation point or otherwise indicating great excitement); a better word should be found.
• "exclaimed" x 2 -- Same for Zaidi-Jivraj.
• "have a negative reaction on" -- is the meaning here that Muslims would have a negative reaction? Or that the doc would add to negative public perception of Muslims?
• "American-made short film Innocence of Muslims" -- "American-made" may be overstating this slightly; it was made in America by an Egyptian citizen.
• "would describe", "She would furthermore argue" -- I'm not sure why this tense is being used. Do you mean this is what she intended to say if allowed to attend the event? (Perhaps use "in her talk, she had planned to describe" or some such language) -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for undertaking this review Khazar! I've made changes to all but one of your points. Best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent, and spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article does an excellent job portraying arguments on all sides and clearly attributing them to sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It would be great to get a picture of Tom Holland for this article, but the credits image is sufficient to meet this criterion.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent work.

ref 10, 14 and 18 are identical

Hi, references 10, 14 and 18 are identical. Is there a handy reference clean up tool to correct this with? AadaamS (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed content pending reliable sources

I removed this:

Raphael Cormack of Columbia University lamented that "(it) miss(es) out about 1,300 years of it (Islam). Holland throughout the show interviews the Bedouin, asking their views about Islam. What he does not say is that within a few centuries of its birth Islam had become a cosmopolitan and urban religion. So much so that poets and scholars of the times did not even speak the Arabic of the Bedouins and had to spend years in the desert trying to re-learn it in order to read the Quran. That intellectual, questioning and diverse tradition is the true 'untold story' of Islam."

I think the claim that "poets and scholars of the times did not even speak the Arabic of the Bedouins and had to spend years in the desert trying to re-learn it in order to read the Quran" while interesting is too strong to be supported by the existing source. I have mailed Cormack asking if he has one. Peter Damian (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Holland's religion

talk Holland's own religion (or the religion he was raised in; not sure he still follows it) seems irrelevant here. He's a historian, and it isn't necessary for a historian to belong to a religion in order to examine its history. Specifically saying "he is not a Muslim" skews a bit judgmental about his ability to look at the topic, imo. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say that Holland's own religious is background is relevant because he is writing about religion and because some of the flack he has received from the Muslim community seems to derive from the fact that he isn't uncritically promoting the Islamic origin myth. However, that being said, there doesn't seem to be a citation bolstering this particular statement in the article and for that reason I would agree that it should be removed, at least until such a time as a new citation can be found. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)