Talk:Muhammad Iqbal

Latest comment: 1 month ago by RegentsPark in topic Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2024
Former featured articleMuhammad Iqbal is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 8, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 6, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 14, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 9, 2006, November 9, 2007, November 9, 2008, December 29, 2008, November 9, 2009, December 29, 2009, November 9, 2010, November 9, 2011, November 9, 2012, November 9, 2013, November 9, 2014, November 9, 2015, November 9, 2016, November 9, 2017, November 9, 2018, and November 9, 2019.
Current status: Former featured article

Two nation theory

edit

Oriental Aristocrat... instead of just reverting can you at least provide explanation why you are reverting? The current explanation that you have offered is refuted by WP:STONEWALL. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here's a reference tying Iqbal and the two-nation theory. "Conceptualising Pakistan in a two nation theory format, Iqbal offered a map of the redistribution of territory forming a Muslim state comprising the north-west part of India and Bengal (Datta 2002: 5037)."[1] 182.190.17.244 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@182.190.17.244: But where does the reference answers to the rebuttals made by Dawn source? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Chakrabarty, Bidyut; Pandey, Rajendra Kumar (10 July 2009). Modern Indian Political Thought: Text and Context. SAGE Publishing. ISBN 978-93-5280-189-3.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2023

edit

The origin of 'allama' is the Arabic word علّامة (rather than saying the Persian word ...) .. source: any Arabic dictionary (even Persian dictionaries would say that). In short Change Allama[11] (from Persian: علامہ

To Allama [11] (from Arabic: علّامة

78.147.100.202 (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

I'm afraid you need to provide the dictionary, and since it will be in either Arabic or Persian and this is English Wikipedia, you'll need to provide the translation as well. The dictionary need not be available online--it can be your paper copy at home, we'll trust you to represent it correctly, we just need to be able to verify the book itself exists. By the way, the supporting citation given in this article is from an 1884 publication, A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English. The entry is:

علامه ʻallāma (p. 763) P علامه ʻallāma (for A. علامة, fr. ʻallām, q.v.), adj. Very knowing, most learned ( = ʻallām)

Which to me doesn't support whether the term derives from Arabic or Persian. The Wikipedia article Allamah doesn't say either, just gives the Arabic, Urdu and Persian words. Xan747 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Currently the 18th source "Understanding the Muslim mind" by Gandhi Rajmohan may not be a suitable source to be used in Wikipedia.

edit

The source is used once in the article in "Personal Life>Background" section to confirm Iqbal's spoken languages (Urdu and Panjabi). Although the fact mentioned here in the source (regarding Iqbal's languages) may not be false or incorrect, the overall source is unreliable and non-neutral in terms of political agendas. The source is way too politically biased and lacks neutrality to be used as a proper source. The source is overall based on political and irrational agendas, personal opinions, irrationalism, lacks transparency and neutrality, somewhat provoking and xenophobic, gives wrong information about various sects and terms/phrases in Islam and does not qualify to be a proper source for any historical facts even if it may contain some actual facts. The overall source is not reliable and breaks various Wikipedia's rules to be counted as a reliable source and the book also contains plenty of original research too. The citation should be replaced by a different and more reliable citation that fits Wikipedia's rules properly. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

edit

In the ideology part, it is has been mentioned that he embrassed the idea of pakistan in 1940 which is wrong as he died before that. 2405:201:2005:302E:DD08:7E80:480C:A221 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done The sentence you point to refers to Jinnah, not Iqbal. Jinnah died in 1948.RegentsPark (comment) 19:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2024

edit

We could be more specific. Allama Iqbal is a Pakistani poet, instead of a South Asian poet.


We could be more specific. Allama Iqbal is a Pakistani poet, instead of a South Asian poet. Haleema09 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done Unfortunately, Iqbal died before Pakistan was formed therefore he cannot be a Pakistani poet. RegentsPark (comment) 15:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply