Talk:Freedom, Equality and the Muslim Brotherhood

Did you know nomination

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 Bruxton talk 02:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a 2010 documentary claimed to expose how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrates Western society from within? Source: Filmarkivet ("Er islam kapret av radikale ekstremister som aktivt går inn for å ødelegge de verdier vestlige samfunn bygger på?" ... "Dokumentaren hevder at Muslimbrødrene avviser vestlige verdier og kultur, og bruker sin religion i en tydelig strategi for å få makt i vestlige samfunn: Ikke ved hjelp av vold og trusler, men gjennom å infiltrere og undergrave demokratiet fra innsiden.") "Is Islam hijacked by radical extremists who actively advocate to destroy the values of western communities?" ... "The documentary claims that the Muslim Brothers reject Western values and culture, and use their religion in a clear strategy to gain power in Western societies: Not through violence and threats, but by infiltrating and undermining democracy from the inside."
  • Reviewed:

Created by Thismess (talk). Self-nominated at 03:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Freedom, Equality and the Muslim Brotherhood; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Article is new enough and long enough. No copy vio detected. Foreign language and subscription sources accepted in good faith. Only issue I can see is that the "from within" part of the hook fact is not actually in the text of the article, and it looks like the current language is saying infiltration is coming from muslims outside Europe (rather than from within Europe) in the current quote. The language of the hook needs to be reflected clearly in the article. Either the hook needs to modified to match the current article text, or the article needs to be changed to reflect the hook. The foreign language source with the content should determine which. Once that is done I can approve the hook.4meter4 (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the review in the article to emphasize that the word "innenfra" literally translates to "from within". However, it is not a big deal to me if the wording is left out if it is somewhat unclear based on the context. Thismess (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thismess I see that, but the hook still isn't exactly in the article. The hook as framed is making a statement from the perspective of the documentary or the documentary's maker, whereas the article is positioning the text in question as a criticism of the documentary through the analysis of a media review. It's really not clear if the documentary itself really made that claim in the article text, or if it was a reviewer's take on what the documentary was claiming. There's a difference. Criticisms aren't always accurate and are subjective opinions, not facts. Again the hook fact needs to clearly align with the text of the article. You could again propose a different hook to match the article's prose, or change the prose of the article to match the hook if the sources support it.4meter4 (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is a quote directly from the film page at Filmarkivet ("Dokumentaren hevder at Muslimbrødrene avviser vestlige verdier og kultur, og bruker sin religion i en tydelig strategi for å få makt i vestlige samfunn: Ikke ved hjelp av vold og trusler, men gjennom å infiltrere og undergrave demokratiet fra innsiden.") "The documentary claims that the Muslim Brothers reject Western values and culture, and use their religion in a clear strategy to gain power in Western societies: Not through violence and threats, but by infiltrating and undermining democracy from the inside." I summed this up in the article as "The film attempts to expose how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrates Western society in order to undermine democracy (and destroy Western values) [the latter from an earlier quote from the same source]." If there's still a problem I need to know exactly what's the issue. Thismess (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thismess I already explained it to you. The prose in the article doesn't align with the prose in the hook. The hook as framed is making a statement from the perspective of the documentary or the documentary's maker, whereas the article is positioning the text in question as a criticism of the documentary through the analysis of a media review. They are not the same thing. You can not reframe a critical opinion as a fact, which is what the hook has erroneously done. Either make the text say "Freedom, Equality and the Muslim Brotherhood claimed to expose how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrates Europe from within" to match the hook and with a supporting source that is fact not opinion based, or suggest an alt hook that matches the text, "Freedom, Equality and the Muslim Brotherhood was criticised in a review by Aftenposten for construing views of how the Muslim Brotherhood allegedly infiltrates Europe from within." I don't know how else to be more clear on this. The article prose needs to directly match the hook fact.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the source for the hook with the source I mentioned in my previous comment instead. The meaning should be clear now from the source now applied, not from the review but from the source in the overview section. Thismess (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. I am assuming good faith on the foreign language source. The hook fact is now clearly presented as a fact and not an opinion and uses prose language that matches the hook with a supporting inline citation. All other DYK criteria were indicated as met in my above review. This hook can be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thismess and 4meter4: I unpromoted based on the following discrepancy. The article and hook say: "claimed to expose how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrates Western society in order to undermine democracy and destroy Western values from within". The source says (translated): "claims that the Muslim Brotherhood rejects Western values and culture, and uses its religion in a clear strategy to gain power in Western societies: not by means of violence and threats, but by infiltrating and undermining democracy from the inside". The source just says that the claim is that the MB rejects Western values, not that they are destroying them. With controversial subject matter such as this, it is important to be accurate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with a shorter hook, I updated it now. Thismess (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Does this change address this issue? I am not confident on commenting further on a foreign language translation issue. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Approved. Please note that I will not be able to promote this nomination after approving it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I promoted this and then depromoted. I think we should consider promoting this hook sometime after Ramadan. It is the holiest month in Islam and it ends April 9. I think we should run this after. Bruxton (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)