Talk:Abolition of the Caliphate

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 Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Report of the abolition in The Times of London

"The Last Caliph", March 1924

• ... that the Abolition of the Caliphate has been described as a "gigantic step"? Source: Nafi, Basheer (2016). "The Abolition of the caliphate: causes and consequences". The Different aspects of Islamic culture, v. 6, pt. I: Islam in the World today, Retrospective of the evolution of Islam and the Muslim world. UNESCO. pp. 183–192.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Field of Mars (Saint Petersburg)

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 00:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC).

• There is problematic copying from at least one source -- see Earwig query. Please address this and ensure that there is no similar copying from offline sources. I confirmed that the article is new enough, is long enough, and appears to have no POV problems. The hook is a little boring/incomprehensible. I'd suggest something like... Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Alt 1: ... that the abolition of the Caliphate was designed to modernize the Republic of Turkey?

• You also may want to consider moving this article to Abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate because more than one caliphate may have been abolished over the course of history. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Calliopejen1:

• The text flagged by earwig was added in this edit, attributed to other wikipedia articles including Ottoman Caliphate. The blog that earwig brings up was written in 2017, but the lines highlighted in earwig were clearly taken by the blogger from our articles. See for example this 2005 version of our Ottoman Caliphate article: “Initially, the National Assembly seemed willing to allow a place for the Caliphate in the new regime, agreeing to the appointment of Mehmed’s cousin Abdul Mejid II as Caliph upon Mehmed’s departure. But the position had been stripped of any authority, and Abdul Mejid’s purely ceremonial reign would be short lived.” versus the 2017 blog “Initially, the National Assembly seemed willing to allow a place for the Caliphate in the new regime, agreeing to the appointment of Mehmed's cousin Abdülmecid II as Caliph upon Sultan Mehmet's departure. But the position had been stripped of any authority, and Abdülmecid's purely ceremonial reign would be short lived.”
• The phrase “Abolition of the Caliphate” almost always refers to this topic, because other caliphates were not “abolished” (they ended in different ways). A search of google books confirms this. And all the four other language wikipedias use the same formulation for their article titles for this topic.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks re: the Earwig text. I guess the only potential issue then is how you count content that has been copied from other Wikipedia articles, because it looks like this article is largely an edited pastiche of content from elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable about DYK rules for that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Calliopejen1: Per criteria 2b: ”DYK articles may freely reuse public domain text per Wikipedia's usual policy, with proper attribution. However, because the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content, text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles, and from the ×5 expansion count for ×5 expanded articles.” So it’s allowed, but it doesn’t count towards the 1,500 limit.

Also what do you think of this hook and second alternative image I just added above:

• Alt 2: ... that after the 1924 abolition of the Caliphate numerous kings, princes and imams vied unsuccessfully for the position?

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there 1500 chars of new content though? The diff where you added the old content seemed to be the vast majority of the article. Re: alt 2, it's better than the original, though confusing (even in the article itself) because it's not clear how/why people are vying for a position that doesn't exist. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: The whole lead, the last two paragraphs of Aftermath, and the two image captions are completely new and by my count add up to just over 1500 characters.

On Alt2, how about “vied unsuccessfully to resurrect the title for themselves”. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, those add up to 1500 characters. I like that new proposal better but "the title" doesn't have an antecedent. How about....

• Alt 3 that after the 1924 abolition of the Caliphate numerous kings, princes, and imams vied unsuccessfully to resurrect the title of caliph for themselves?

Where in the sources cited does it mention princes? I'm not immediately seeing it. Once that's cleared up, I think we're good to go. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: It was my editorial license, since our article on Amanullah Khan says he was a prince until 1926. But I have read a little more and come up with a more precise version of the same:

• Alt 4 that after the 1924 abolition of the Caliphate numerous pan-Islamic conferences failed to find consensus as to which country's leader should resurrect the title of caliph?

This is more reflective of how it actually happened, and I think is more interesting. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Alt 5 that after the 1924 abolition of the Caliphate numerous leaders vied unsuccessfully to resurrect the title of caliph for themselves?

• @Onceinawhile: Alt 4 is accurate but a little wordy. I'd prefer Alt 5 but either works! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: great, thanks. I agree with ALT5. Do you have a preference on the two pictures? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

2nd one is way better... 1st is illegible. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: ok thanks. Hopefully the promoting admin will take that picture.

If you are done please could you give the review a tick? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Good to go! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but I am surprised that it even passed. Many paragraphs have no inline citations at all, per Rule D2. And where are the inline cites for the two quotes under "End of the Sultanate"? Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: thanks for looking at this. The missing sources have now been added throughout. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. Restoring tick per Calliiopejen1's review. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Parliament

In the text it reads that the sultan disolved the parliament in April 1920. Actually it was the Allies.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath

I moved this uncited text here for sourcing at a later date.

The abolishment of the position of Caliphate and Sheikh ul-Islam was followed by a common, secular authority. Many of the religious communities failed to adjust to the new regime. This was exacerbated by the emigration or impoverishment, due to deteriorating economic conditions. Families that hitherto had financially supported religious community institutions such as hospitals and schools stop doing so.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)