Talk:Darul Uloom Deoband
Latest comment: 2 months ago by 2409:40F0:114C:B4A3:8000:0:0:0 in topic Moahmmed
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Darul Uloom Deoband article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
|
|
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Deobandi was copied or moved into Darul Uloom Deoband with this edit on 01:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Neutrality?
editHi! I came across this article in the course of a cleanup project, expecting to repair citations that had been altered in this edit, and found that in the intervening time, every single reference had been removed and replaced in this edit by User:Owais Al Qarni, with the article almost completely rewritten (including significant section removal), and largely relying on a single source, Akhtar 2022.
I'm by no means a subject matter expert in this area, but I'm wondering if any page watchers would like to weigh in on whether the article feels more neutral now, or whether it felt more neutral before, and whether any of the references from the page history or deleted prose should be restored. Thanks. Folly Mox (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- I won't comment on sources but the article does not cleanup. I am not happy with sentences such as
Darul Uloom Deoband has been a pragmatic example of religious intellectual manifestation, knowledge production and political struggle against the oppressor and imperialist forces
, andThe above argument displays well that Darul Uloom was not merely a formal academic institution but it intended to attain lofty political and cultural goals.
andThe Darul Uloom Deoband was established to impart traditional religious education to the Muslim of India and it has never been faltered in its commitment
. Neutrality is still an issue for me, and the article puts a different tone in. The last sentence I quoted is seriously an opinion of some people. I know of Manazir Ahsan Gilani stating that "it should be accepted that Darul Uloom Deoband has failed to achieve the purpose which its founder had thought of". Struggle against British imperialism is also a bit too exaggerated. Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind had nothing to do with this institute until Mahmud Hasan Deobandi was released and his students began participating in it. Silk Letter Movement was launched by his students independently. Yes, the seminary is there in the background but there were not very much internal programs on this as far as I know. - The Heading Deoband School looks weird. Some parts of it could be moved to the Background section. It once again brings some strange things that shouldn't be there and those that have been well discussed and analysed by Wasif Dehlavi. I would likely go through the entire revisions, old and new, sometime latter. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Folly Mox: The over-reliance on Akhtar 2022 also struck me as non-neutral, so I've boldly removed it. You can fix the broken citations now. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 18:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Moahmmed
editAnna pasand nahi
Mohammed 2409:40F0:114C:B4A3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)