Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/History of Darul Uloom Deoband

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: rejected by reviewer, closed by Theleekycauldron talk 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

History of Darul Uloom Deoband

(
)
  • ... that Syed Mehboob Rizwi's History of Darul Uloom Deoband is the first and authoritative source on the institution's history, upholding a legacy of continuous publication? Source: Qasmi, Muhammadullah (2016). Darul Uloom Deoband Ki Jame O Mukhtasar Tareekh (PDF) (in Urdu). India: Shaikh-Ul-Hind Academy. p. 39. OCLC 1345466013.
    • Reviewed:

Created by Owais Al Qarni (talk). Self-nominated at 15:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/History of Darul Uloom Deoband; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Long enough, new enough. No maintenance templates found, AGF on sources. QPQ unnecessary. First hooks are discouraged - what else have you got?--Launchballer 13:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Launchballer: I don't believe it's relevant to mention 'First hooks are discouraged' here as the content area is quite limited. I've pinned @TheAafi: for further discussion.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm unsure what I can contribute to this discussion but I somewhat agree with Launchballer. The hook needs some modifications. Do you have an alternate hook? I understand the book is considered primary and authoritative source of institution's history. Perhaps do some rework and rewording? ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • ALT1: that Syed Mehboob Rizwi's History of Darul Uloom Deoband is the earliest authoritative work on institution's history? –Owais Al Qarni (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Launchballer: What about ALT1?–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Same problem. I think you should think of a different hook altogether.--Launchballer 18:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: What about ALT2?–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Better, although I'd expect a more merciless prepbuilder to crop 'maintaining' onwards, and perhaps "the institution" should be wikilinked. Let's roll.--Launchballer 10:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Here's the modified text: ... that Syed Mehboob Rizwi's History of Darul Uloom Deoband traces the institution's hundred-year journey? –Owais Al Qarni (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Also fine.--Launchballer 09:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Unpromoted as uninteresting per WP:ERRORS / Special:Diff/1200957927. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    • The nom in a DYK newcomer and cat-lover, so I'm willing to put in some extra effort on this. Perhaps something along the lines of:
      • ALT3: ... that History of Darul Uloom Deoband has been called "the most important effort in the history of [the seminary]" but "lacking ... critical understanding and objectivity"?
RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
With a few minor tweaks, I could approve:
  • ALT4: ... that History of Darul Uloom Deoband has been called "the most important effort in [its] history" but "lacking [...] critical understanding and objectivity"?
That's if I'm not too involved to do so.--Launchballer 10:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I like that. RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Alright, let's try this again.--Launchballer 19:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, Bruxton, and AirshipJungleman29: given the discussion at WT:DYK#WP:DYKRR about approving hooks maybe this needs a different approver? RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I think this instance is fine; it is Launchballer approving a shortened version of RoySmith's hook. As a promoter, I routinely trim hooks I have "approved by promoting", so I don't see an issue here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith, perhaps we should get someone else to check hooks here, given that it was Launchballer who approved the hook that was pulled. (I have struck that hook and all other except for ALT4 to avoid possible confusion.) I am puzzled by both quotes in ALTs 3 and 4, given that the article text, called it the most important effort in the history of Darul Uloom Deoband and lacking the critical understanding and objectivity necessary for a comprehensive discourse are in neither case surrounded by double quotes, which imply that these are someone's exact words. Are these translations of quoted material from the original Urdu, in which case they should be quoted, or are they paraphrases of the Urdu, in which case they shouldn't be quoted in either place? If they are paraphrases—and we would need confirmation of this one way or the other—then perhaps the following modification might work:
  • ALT5: ... that History of Darul Uloom Deoband has been called the most important effort in the seminary's existence, but also said to be lacking necessary critical understanding and objectivity?
I used "seminary" based on Darul Uloom Deoband's article's lede, though the term would need to be added to the nominated article, so "institiution" from the original hooks, with or without wikilink, may be preferable. However, "seminary" does give important general context. Pinging nominator Owais Al Qarni to comment on this and also hopefully to help on the translation/quotation issue as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm good with ALT5, and agree about the quoting. RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, RoySmith, AirshipJungleman29, and Bruxton: As a nominator, I presented ALT6, which is precisely based on the sources.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
New reviewer needed, as we may be all too involved at this point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
At 203 characters, Alt6 is too long. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
ALT6a: ... that the History of Darul Uloom Deoband is the most important effort in the institution's historical literature, but also said to be lacking necessary critical understanding and objectivity? Source: Qasmi, Muhammadullah (2016). Darul Uloom Deoband Ki Jame O Mukhtasar Tareekh (PDF) (in Urdu). India: Shaikh-Ul-Hind Academy. p. 39. OCLC 1345466013., Akhtar, Muhammad Naveed (2022). "Darul Ulum Deoband: Preserving Religious And Cultural Integrity Of South Asian Muslims Through Structural And Strategic Innovations". Hamdard Islamicus. 45 (3): 84. doi:10.57144/hi.v45i3.326. ISSN 0250-7196. S2CID 252890505. Archived from the original on 9 December 2022. Retrieved 26 December 2023.
Paul_012–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid we can't say in wikivoice that it is the most important effort since only one person says that; we can, however, say that it has been called that. Owais Al Qarni, based on your use of "institution's historical literature", I'm wondering if the article saying that Muhammadullah Qasmi called it the most important effort in the history of Darul Uloom Deoband means he meant in the history of Darul Uloom Deoband as an institution (that is, the most important thing ever done by Darul Uloom Deoband)—which is how I've been interpreting it—or the most important of the histories written about the institution Darul Uloom Deoband, or simply the most important history of any kind, religious or otherwise, written there. If not the first of those, please clarify. Thank you! (I've struck both ALT6 variants.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I just skimmed over Khalili's comments on Rizwi's book. He considers the book an important and worthy effort for documenting the institution's history, and closes the comment stating, "This book encompasses almost this history of over 100-year events and services of the Darul Uloom Deoband. On the seminary's history, this book is the most primary and reliable source, and is being continuously published". I haven't checked with the other source and only presented a rough translation of what Khalili has commented.─ Aafī (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
As this nomination is over two and a half months old, has no viable hooks, and discussion seems to have stalled, I am marking it as rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/History_of_Darul_Uloom_Deoband&oldid=1206787754"