Talk:Ashraf Ali Thanwi

Lead sentence
There has been a dispute over whether to call Ashraf Ali Thanwi "a late-nineteenth and twentieth-century Sunni Muslim scholar" or "a late-nineteenth and twentieth-century Deobandi Muslim scholar" in the lead sentence.

I don't see why he couldn't be called "Deobandi" in the lead sentence, but I equally fail to see why it should be absolutely necessary to do that. As long as the lead somehow makes it clear that he belonged to this movement, it should be alright. Then again, why not immediately mention it in the first sentence and be done with it?

Any argument over whether this is notable enough to mention in the first sentence seems silly to me. That he was Deobandi certainly seems part of his general context as much as that he was Sunni (and so should be permissible per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE), but so many things are relevant to mention, and sometimes editorial decisions have to be made. The important bit is to have a lead text that is clear and concise.

But really, the article has a terrible lead. For one, the phrase "and the revival of classical Sufi thought from Indian subcontinent during the British Raj" is simple hanging there mid-sentence, effectively saying that Thanwi was the revival. Or, for example, what on earth is a mix of "Sunni orthodoxy, Islamic elements of belief and the patriarchal structure of the society", and how could one 'teach' that? What this article needs is someone with better English skills and an interest in the topic to go over it and copy-edit it throughout.

I strongly advise to put off any dispute over one word in the lead sentence until that vital copy-editing has been done. Of course other editors are free to discuss this and come to a wp:consensus (rather than edit war) about the "Deobandi"/"Sunni" issue, but I won't be participating in that. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)