Template:Did you know nominations/Composite Nationalism and Islam
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Composite Nationalism and Islam
[edit]- ...
that Maulana Syed Husain Ahmad Madani wrote a book titled Composite Nationalism and Islam that opposed the partition of India and instead advocated for a united country?"Madani, head for several decades of the Deoband training centre for theologians, strongly supported Congress nationalism and the ideal of a 'composite nationalism' within an united India, which he thought would be more conducive to the spread and prosperity of his community over the entire subcontinent than any religious partition."
Created by Anupam (talk). Self-nominated at 23:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC).
I'm honestly not sure if the article subject meets the notability guidelines; I understand that the book is old and was published in 1938, but the sources in the article seem to be more about Maulana than the book itself (at least based on the quotations) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:Narutolovehinata5, if you perform search for the book with its Urdu title متحدہ قومیت اور اسلام, there are a plethora of results, apart from the English ones in the article. As the article was only recently created, there is a lot of expansion that can be done. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd suggest beefing up the article more at this point. While the article itself is long enough for DYK, the article doesn't really seem to go into much detail about the book itself, but rather Maulana's life. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate the advice User:Narutolovehinata5. I'll definitely expand the article when I get some time. Thanks again, AnupamTalk 01:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd suggest beefing up the article more at this point. While the article itself is long enough for DYK, the article doesn't really seem to go into much detail about the book itself, but rather Maulana's life. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:Narutolovehinata5, if you perform search for the book with its Urdu title متحدہ قومیت اور اسلام, there are a plethora of results, apart from the English ones in the article. As the article was only recently created, there is a lot of expansion that can be done. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Anupam: It's been more than a month since your last comment. Are you still willing to pursue the nomination? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Narutolovehinata5, thanks for your reply. On the same day I said I would expand the article, I did so. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the expansion, it looks a lot better now. I think the article now meets the DYK requirements, or at least the technical ones (length, newness, etc.). The main concern I have is the statement that "most British Indian Muslims decided to remain in India rather than move to Pakistan". I am not well-versed enough in Indian history to know if this was indeed this case, so I'm leaving the rest of the review to someone who may be more familiar with the subject matter. One last clarification @Anupam: Is this your first DYK nomination? The DYK credit tool is down for me at the moment so I can't check. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Narutolovehinata5, you're welcome. Indeed, this fact is corroborated by multiple sources. This article, published in The Conversation, for example, says: "It should be said, however, that the idea of Pakistan was not supported by all Muslims: More than half of them would remain in India after partition." Similarly, this one, published in The New York Times, states: "Despite the mass violence and displacement of the partition, around 35 million Muslims stayed in India after the creation of Pakistan..." The last DYK I did was this one, which User:Royroydeb approved (perhaps he could look at this one). I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, Anupam has two prior DYK credits: the one in February mentioned in their post, and one back in 2009(!). No QPQ is required for this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- User:Narutolovehinata5, you're welcome. Indeed, this fact is corroborated by multiple sources. This article, published in The Conversation, for example, says: "It should be said, however, that the idea of Pakistan was not supported by all Muslims: More than half of them would remain in India after partition." Similarly, this one, published in The New York Times, states: "Despite the mass violence and displacement of the partition, around 35 million Muslims stayed in India after the creation of Pakistan..." The last DYK I did was this one, which User:Royroydeb approved (perhaps he could look at this one). I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Full review needed of expanded article. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The introduction section mentions a couple facts that are not summarized in the body of the article. Likewise, there are some important facts mentioned in the body which are not in the introduction. I am also curious about the name of the author. In this article, it is "Maulana Syed Husain Ahmad Madani", but in his biography at Hussain Ahmed Madani, it is "Sayyid Hussain Ahmad Madani". Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi User:Flibirigit, thanks for your willingness to help with this. Could you kindly let me know the sentence numbers from the introduction that are not present in the body of the article? I will add that content into the body once you let me know your specific request regarding this. To answer your second question, both Sayyid and Maulana are titles/honourifics. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining the names. Honorifics are usually removed in the preparation stage for nominations, please be aware that the approved hook might be alternated accordingly after it is approved here. It appears that the entire introduction is similiar to a "background" section, and is not discussed in the body of the article. I think the easiest thing to do is label the current introduction as a "background" section or similar title, and then write an introduction to summarize the "background", "arguments" and "influence" sections. It will also provide more context to the article. I hope this makes sense. I am also trying to focus on finishing some other essays, so I may only respond once per day. Despite being busy, I will keep checking back here occasionally, and I will make sure we see this through to the end. Flibirigit (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome User:Flibirigit! I'd like you to kindly reexamine your assessment with regard to the lede. I've looked at it again and all of the points, with exception of the book being translated into English, have been discussed in the article. The intent of the book was to argue that Indians are one nationality, regardless of their religion, and it thus opposed the partition of India, instead advocating for a united India. This is emphasized in the "Arguments" section of the article and summarized in the first two sentences of the lede. The last paragraph of the lede summarizes the most important part from the "Influence" section--that most Indian Muslims chose not to migrate to the state created in their name, Pakistan. In my view, the lede does a good job of summarizing main points contained in the body of the article. With regard to the honourifics, I can certainly remove them if you'd like me to do so. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I apologize for not getting back to this sooner. I will go over it again in more detail tomorrow and on the weekend. Flibirigit (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome User:Flibirigit! I'd like you to kindly reexamine your assessment with regard to the lede. I've looked at it again and all of the points, with exception of the book being translated into English, have been discussed in the article. The intent of the book was to argue that Indians are one nationality, regardless of their religion, and it thus opposed the partition of India, instead advocating for a united India. This is emphasized in the "Arguments" section of the article and summarized in the first two sentences of the lede. The last paragraph of the lede summarizes the most important part from the "Influence" section--that most Indian Muslims chose not to migrate to the state created in their name, Pakistan. In my view, the lede does a good job of summarizing main points contained in the body of the article. With regard to the honourifics, I can certainly remove them if you'd like me to do so. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining the names. Honorifics are usually removed in the preparation stage for nominations, please be aware that the approved hook might be alternated accordingly after it is approved here. It appears that the entire introduction is similiar to a "background" section, and is not discussed in the body of the article. I think the easiest thing to do is label the current introduction as a "background" section or similar title, and then write an introduction to summarize the "background", "arguments" and "influence" sections. It will also provide more context to the article. I hope this makes sense. I am also trying to focus on finishing some other essays, so I may only respond once per day. Despite being busy, I will keep checking back here occasionally, and I will make sure we see this through to the end. Flibirigit (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- ? - Interesting: - ?
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Article created on January 23, and nominated on January 30. Length and sourcing are adequate. The article addresses the subject in a neutral tone. No plagiarism issues detected, and quotes are directly attributed. There is no photo used in the article. Nominator has less than five DYK credits. A QPQ is not required. The hook as written is a bit bland, since it is in the form of "author wrote a book about a subject". I suggest to incorporate one of the book's arguments into the hook, as they are all quite interesting, and provide a hook into the book. As for the lead section, it appears we look at it from different points of view, but I don't think it is critically to passing or failing the nomination. The year the book was written, and the year it was translated into another language should be mentioned and cited in the body, and not just the introduction. I apologize for the delay in the more thorough review. Overall, there appear to be only minor changes needed. Flibirigit (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- User:Flibirigit, how about we change the hook to: * ALT1 ... that Husain Ahmad Madani's book Composite Nationalism and Islam advocated the idea that different religions do not constitute different nationalities? "The Maulana argued in his book that separate religions does not mean separate nationalities." Would that satisfy your concern so we can move forward? I look forward to hearing from you, AnupamTalk 01:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT1 is a good hook. It provides insight into the book, is mentioned and properly cited inline. Flibirigit (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Flibirigit! I have also removed all the honourifics from the article as you requested. Everything should be set to go now! With regards, AnupamTalk 15:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
