Template:Did you know nominations/Siddiqullah Chowdhury

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) 05:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Siddiqullah Chowdhury edit

(

)

~~... that an Indian politician Siddiqullah Chowdhury of the Trinamool Congress party had previously contested elections on Indian National Congress tickets?~~ Ref 2
- ALT1:... that an Indian politician Siddiqullah Chowdhury is the state president of the religious organisation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Fighters Uncaged

Created by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 04:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC).

Comment-Non of the hooks are hooky and someone who does not dabble with Indian politics will have no Idea of what you are talking about.FORCE RADICAL (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe there is no problem with the second hook. Still

ALT2:... that Indian legislator Siddiqullah Chowdhury feels that if Muslims did not take part in the Indian freedom movement then, it would have taken another 100 years for India to become independent?
@Forceradical: . RRD দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That's good but paraphrasing it:-

ALT2a:... that Indian legislator Siddiqullah Chowdhury is of the opinion that without Muslims involvement in the freedom struggle India would not have been free before another 100 years?FORCE RADICAL (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A full review is neededFORCE RADICAL (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ The article is not written in good English. I couldn't support this appearing on Main Page without a good copyedit. Same for all of the proposed hooks. Main Page is not a place for less than professional quality English. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
new enough, long enough, no coypvio issues, hook seems OK on substance but serious copyedit needed to the hook and article, so for now, this can not be promoted. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan:. Please have a look. I have adressed the issue. RRD দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The new hook:
ALT3:... that Indian legislator Siddiqullah Chowdhury feels that without the participation of Muslims in the Indian freedom struggle, it would have taken another 100 years for India to become independent?
RRD দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Article looks better, but I'd still like an uninvolved editor to give it a copyedit, given the concerns raised above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Guild of Copy Editors has a smaller than usual backlog at the moment, and I see some places in the article where their assistance is needed. User:Yellow Evan, did you check the article's neutrality and sourcing (and both criteria for the hook as well)? You didn't mention it in your review, and it does need to be covered. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll check neutrality once the copyedit is done since sometimes the article's meaning can inadvertently be changed. But the hook needs to be sourced. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

For English and pithiness, I suggest: "ALT4:... that in the opinion of Siddiqullah Chowdhury, it would have taken another 100 years for India to become independent, without the participation of Muslims in the Indian freedom struggle, ?

I can't tell if he's a Muslim or Hindu. If the latter, we should mention it, as it makes the hook more hooky. If he's a Muslim, it kind of undermines the wow factor. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing he's a Muslim, which makes me wonder if we should choose a different aspect to feature.

More pertinently, I'm also really uncomfortable with us putting a politically and religiously inflammatory hook like this on Main page based on a non-English language source that most of us can't check. Has anyone checked that the source absolutely has him saying exactly this sentiment?

Finally, I struck my naughty-word "Oppose", but I actually currently oppose this even stronger than before. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Striking all but ALT4, since that's by far the most reasonable hook proposed here yet. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Chowdhury's sentiments in the article are based on a speech he made at the end of 2015; Google Translate renders his words from the Bengali as follows: "This country has been liberated by us – it should be kept in mind. If we were not independent, instead of 1947, this country would get independence more than 100 years later. The country would not have been independent without us." This is in the following context, from the article's opening paragraph: "We are standing on the platform of Zameet, proclaiming that we will never allow our country to become a Hindu state." Since he's the president of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind's West Bengal branch—it's an Islamic organization—it would be extraordinary if he weren't a Muslim, but the article should explicitly say whether he is or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: @Yellow Evan: @Dweller:

I have had the article copyedited. I have also spoken to the copyeditor, and I believe, he might do a second round of copyedit. Anyway, as from the translation posted by BlueMoonset, the translation is correct (Bengali being my mother tongue). Anyway, for further verification, any editor of WikiProject West Bengal or WikiProject Bangladesh can be contacted. RRD (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm really uncomfortable about this. I don't see a clear claim in that translation that he's talking about Muslims. He could be talking about people from his state, his political party, or even his family. If we're going to make a really controversial political/religious claim on Main page, it needs to be cast iron. And I agree that the article should mention his religion as it seems to be so important to his politics. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, a new hook:

ALT5:...that Indian legislator Siddiqullah Chowdhury has hailed the Razakars (an anti Bangladeshi paramilitary force organised by Pakistan during Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971) as religious leaders? RRD (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have struck ALT5 because of the long parenthetical, which violates WP:DYKSG#C9: No parentheses in the hook unless absolutely unavoidable. The (pictured) (or equivalent) for the image slot is an exception. RRD, please try again. (Note: I don't think this would be interesting with the parenthetical removed, since most readers are unlikely to have adequate context here.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
ALT6:...that Indian legislator Siddiqullah Chowdhury is critical of the Sheikh Hasina led government of Bangladesh?

RRD (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

- I can't even find that in the article, so that hook is a big no for the time being. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Its in the Government of Bangladesh subsection in Views section. RRD (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Cite error: The named reference Razakars was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The correction has been made. RRD (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. That hook works for me, I see no ocpyvio issues, article looks pretty good now, new enough, long enough. Given the problems raised by others that I'm not sure they're completely satisfied as well as the fact the source for the hook is a bit confusing at first, I'm only given this an AGF tick. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)