Talk:Muhammad Iqbal/Archive 4

Notable work in info table
I changed the info box from philosopher to muslim scholar which is not displayed to the public but changes the behavior of the info box to show the notable work of the personality in the info table, it is same like Rumi but my change was reverted by Justice007 saying that Iqbal was not a religious scholar and this is not bibliography to include all his literary work in the info table but i do not agree with that explanation. Iqbal was a muslim and he was a scholar, put together it does make him "Muslim scholar". Calling someone a muslim scholar does not make him a religious scholar or Islamic scholar. There is a difference between being a muslim scholar and islamic scholar or "scholar of teachings of Islam. No, we are not saying that Iqbal was a "scholar of teachings of Islam".

About the reason that it is not bibliography and we cannot include all of his work in the info table. Rumi has it, why can't Iqbal have it. I think we should follow the same standards across Wikipedia or at least try to. Sh eri ff (report) 20:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are getting facts wrong. He was "muslim" and he was "scholar" but he was not "Muslim scholar". We don't attach religion to any scholar unless he/she is scholar of that religion. For example, if there can be scholars whose religion is Christian or Hindu but we don't call them as Hindu scholar or Christian Scholar unless they are scholar of that religion. Maududi was "Muslim scholar" but not Iqbal. Iqbal was poet and politician. He was not religious leader. Another example can be of Jinnah. Jinnah fought for separate Islamic state but he can't be called as "Islamic scholar" or "Muslim scholar". And don't compare 13th century Rumi with 20th century Iqbal. -- Human 3015   TALK   21:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, there are reliable sources which call him a "Muslim scholar". Secondly, I am not comparing Rumi with Iqbal. I am comparing info tables of Rumi Wikipedia page and Muhammad Iqbal Wikipedia page. Where does it say that you can place 13th century scholar's notable work in info table but you cannot include 20th century scholar's literary work in info table and we are changing the info box template from philosopher to muslim scholar just to highlight his literary work in info table. He has a lot of literary work and it should show in info table. Words "Muslim scholar" won't be visible to public. Sh eri ff  (report) 22:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * When you label people by religion, you have to ask yourself whether religion was an important part of his/her notability. In Iqbal's case, the answer is definitely yes. Read the article. So, I don't see a problem with labelling him a "Muslim scholar." - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that you are taking the meaning of the rules or sources in its correct description. First, we do not look the example of the Wiki articles that breaches the rules, I do not remember, but I am pretty sure it is that. If you rely on the Wiki articles rather rules, you should know great figures do not need to mention their notable work as William Shakespeare that means rest work is not notable, besides that we cannot add the entire Bibliography section to the info-box. It is not suitable. Secondly, the source you cited does not support the term, Muslim scholar. You are degrading and limiting the great poet to label him the only Muslim figure.Justice007 (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Now, that was what i was looking for, you gave me an example which does not have notable work in the info table. I wanted you to support your choice with either an example or with a Wikipedia rule or policy instead of reverting my edits and calling them "mindless" and "poorly" in summary lines. That is not productive and conducive. I was only insisting to apply "Muslim scholar" info box template which would not have been displayed to the public. My intention was never to limit his personality. No one can do that. Sh eri ff  (report) 17:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sheriff, if you want to use infobox of "Muslim scholar" just to add "notable work" section then I agree with User Justice, there is nothing called "notable work" of Iqbal, because his entire work is notable and we can't write only few books. We write "notable work" in infoboxes of those authors who got some award for their work. -- Human 3015   TALK   17:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reason to try to include his notable work was to make it easy for a reader. The goal was that when a common reader visits the page he/she should be able see almost everything about Iqbal summarized in info table and that includes his literary work as well. In its present state, a common reader has to read the whole article to find out that Iqbal did some literary work and what was that. There are a lot of people in the world who do not know who Iqbal is and do not know anything about him. And i think that is the reason we have info tables so people can quickly learn about a personality or a title in question without reading the whole article but i am okay with the present state as long as we have examples such as William Shakespeare out there. Sh eri ff  (report) 18:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I am agree with you some extent. Rabindranath Tagore is same in Bengali literature what Iqbal in Urdu or Shakespeare in English. Tagore has got Nobel Prize in literature and first Asian to get Nobel prize in any field, also he wrore national anthems of India and Bangladesh, his infobox talks about his "notable work", but his entire work is written in "Notable work" because they have created page named Works of Rabindranath Tagore and linked it to "notable work", if you want to do same then you can create article named Works of Muhammad Iqbal.-- Human 3015   TALK   19:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, how about directing to other works instead of a separate article? Sh eri ff  (report) 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Influences and influenced at infobox

 * We are here to provide accurate and authentic academic reliable sources to prove the terms and content. Adding the names of selected subjects of personal choices does not pass the neutrality, we do not adopt the way that goes nowhere, but opens the way to spoil the article because every contributor will add the names that even do not have academic values. The question is here why should we add that only two names of the choices while there are hundreds of thousand writers and poets, who are influenced by Iqbal. My edits are for the standard of the project, and I assume good faith, fairness and neutrality. I am well aware of the some the bunch of editors, who each other favour, and remain reverting, and issuing edit warring notice without any legitimate reasons. It is a way of harassment to stop the editors, who edit in the way of neutrality without personal choices or fan phobia behaviour. My edits do not fall under edit warring, I have removed the names to avoid, and stop the further poor notable subjects for the promotional intentions. We cannot add all the names, who are influenced by Iqbal, we have to focus on that from whom Iqbal was influenced. I have not the objection if the consensus is in yes.Justice007 (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Template clarification needed means you should mention the name of the university in that the subject served.
 * Well-sourced content does not mean one can display Due. I appreciate if the edits are constructive, and that improve and expand the article. I perform the efforts to maintain the grammar towards verb form, subject-verb agreement, preposition use, the determiner use, punctuations, complex and compound sentence punctuations, wordiness, spelling, misspelled words, enhancement, and word choice. I am not sure that you are talking about the English language. I do not spoil the pearls if there is nothing in return. I am not the owner of the project, but I am here to maintain the policies and guidelines, and standards that I experienced. We do not follow the examples; we apply only the policies. Over-link means, if you link any Wiki article to any term, for example, Karachi, Pakistan, does not need to link Pakistan because Karachi already displays the link of Pakistan. The lead section is for the key summary of the body, you can add the full content citing the reliable sources in the body sections avoiding the statement of the subject, and blaming that have not authentic sources, and also keep in mind the way of language; Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor the website.

Regarding Iqbal, the terms influenced and influences, you misunderstand that. It is clear that Iqbal was influenced by many figures, but it is different thing that other authors are influenced by Iqbal, it means the author, who adopt the way, and thoughts as Iqbal's philosophy, not just because they wrote the book on Iqbal, it does not endorse the term as you are mentioning the names. In India and Pakistan, much more notable authors are, who wrote about Iqbal, even the writers of foreign languages that you can see in the references section, we cannot degrade anyone; everyone claims to be influenced by Iqbal while they are not even the writer, not the poet. It is not the appropriate practice to display that. I hope this helps, and you understand. I suggest you, revert your reversion to avoid unneeded edit warring.Justice007 (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ale Ahmed Suroor's page mentions not about him writing books on Iqbal but also establishing institutes adhering to Iqbal's philosophy and that is good enough to establish him as influenced by Iqbal. Dawn reference referred in Fateh Muhammad Malik talks about him being influenced by Iqbal not just that he wrote on him. Wikipedia goes by references not by some editors personal POV. You are welcome to add any other notables with their own Wikipedia page who are proven by reliable sources that they were influenced by Iqbal. We are not talking about ordinary people who were influenced by Iqbal. We are just talking about the notables. Sh eri ff  (report) 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

MOVE
I am reverting the move from Muhammad Iqbal to Allama Iqbal. protests, there was no move discussion. If wants a move, they can start a discussion here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Debate about which title is more common and even if the proposed title is the most common, there are also concerns that "Allama" is an honorific, something which Wikipedia generally tries to avoid in article titles. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Iqbal → Allama Iqbal – Approve as nominator: The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. Careful analysis of references present in the article reveals that subject's common name is "Allama Iqbal". There are eleven mentions of "Allama Iqbal", ten mentions of just "Iqbal" and six mentions of "Muhammad Iqbal" thus as per WP:COMMONNAME, article title does not have to be the person's given name, it can be anything what most reliable sources use the title for the subject, thus please move the page to "Allama Iqbal", Iqbal's most commonly used name. Sh eri ff (report) 05:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Google search and Google books show the most familiar name in the academic world, is Muhammad Iqbal, Sir Muhammad Iqbal, and how other Wikipedia displays. Here are some links to demonstrate the birth name as the world news. What is the issue to rename the article while all the honorific names are mentioned in the lead section. In a general view, just "Iqbal" is more familiar than Allama Iqbal. I do not understand the motivation of the editor.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

Please check the Google Books too. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As I remember discussion of the move request of the article Ghalib by RegentsPark

1

I will agree to the main space name "Iqbal", it is widely known in the Urdu world.Justice007 (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The motive is to identify the subject properly. Since as a kid i have been known to identify him as "Allama Iqbal" from text books to newspapers to anything what i read. Any outside links do not overrule Wikipedia's policy WP:COMMONNAME, which states that common name is what most reliable sources present in the article identify the subject with and according to that policy "Allama Iqbal" is Iqbal's most common name. Please support this move otherwise help me understand your motive to keep it as is. Sh eri ff  (report) 12:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Iqbal is not an unknown figure that we introduce him; everyone knows his name including all the honorific names that are, with the bold letter, mentioned in the lead sections. In the Google search with any honorific name displays the Muhammad Iqbal automatically. As the most of academic sources in the English language holds the birth name alongside some sources honorific names too, first, Allama falls under WP:HONORIFIC, second, what we are going to gain with that? You are listening from your childhood Allama Iqbal, I am listening from my childhood Quid-e-Azam, but that does not work, we have to do that as the guidelines and rules state. I will agree if consensus endorses any name, changing the name means other projects of the Wikipedia will have to change that too. I hope other experienced editors, who contributed the article, will give their opinion.Justice007 (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Anybody who has a page on Wikipedia is notable and not an unknown figure but page moves still happen because their title does not fall under Wikipedia policies most specifically WP:COMMONNAME, we have to adhere to the policies as much as we can, it's not about us gaining or losing anything from this move, it's what our service to this encyclopedia requires from us. WP:COMMONNAME does not say that if lead mentions all the names and honorifics then we can keep the article title which is less common for that subject. Allama might fall under WP:HONORIFIC but WP:HONORIFIC does not override WP:COMMONNAME as it talks about exceptions and one exception is if the honorific is part of most commonly used name then you can have the honorific in the title, Example Alexander The Great. It's not about my personal choice, if Quaid-e-Azam is proven to be the most commonly used title in the sources on that page then i invite you to initiate the move and i will be the first one to support although i did not analyze references on that page yet. Sh eri ff  (report) 16:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think, I have enough explained, it is my last comment regarding you, I look forwards others editors what they think. The policy clearly states; "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." For me is not any problem, nor the issue if we reach the consensus whatever the name is or decided, as the academic sources in English, endorse the Muhammad Iqbal or just Iqbal.Justice007 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Allama" is a honorific title, not his name. It would be like having an article titled "Governor Pataki" instead of George Pataki, citing that newspapers mostly referred to him as such. Wiki policy is clear enough, COMMONNAME refers to the common name, not the common title. Kraxler (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sorry to say but if you think "Allama" is same in "Allama Iqbal" as "Governor" in "Governor Pataki", you totally and completely lack the knowledge and understanding about the subject being discussed here, good luck to Wikipedia. Sh eri ff  (report) 17:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We are here to follow the standard way, and we should keep in mind how to react if something is not falling in our expectations, we apply the rules, and civility is the one of the five pillars of the rules. We must hold care at all style of writings, and comments.Justice007 (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward oppose: As noted above, Allama is an honorific title used to refer to a person as a scholar and religious leader. It should only be used on Wikipedia in very exceptional cases, and I see no clear indication that this article should be an exception. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you be kind enough and explain the criteria for an exception as well? Sh eri ff  (report) 13:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Theresa seem to be exceptions. A summary explanation would probably be somewhat of an oversimplification, but the Gandhi article was the topic of six requested moves and lots of discussion (so far), and most people probably don't know who you're talking about if you refer to Mother Theresa by some other name. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what I am try to explain that "Allama Iqbal" should be an exception same as Mahatma Gandhi because there have been many "Muhammad Iqbal" in the world but "Allama Iqbal" is only one. If you say Muhammad Iqbal, I wouldn't know which Muhammad Iqbal you are talking about because there lives a "Muhammad Iqbal" next door to me and one in the neighboring street and a few in the same locality but I have never heard about anyone who was known as "Allama Iqbal" except the subject of this article, this is unique only to him. Also, lead of this article accepts that he is widely known as "Allama Iqbal" and I think the article should be renamed to what he is widely known as, as per WP:COMMONNAME. Sh eri ff  (report) 09:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the motivation for renaming the article is to disambiguate this person from other people with the same name, then we need some consideration of whether this person has "primary topic" status among those with the name "Muhammad Iqbal" that are discussed on Wikipedia, e.g., when considering the others listed at Muhammad Iqbal (disambiguation). If we decide that he is not the primary topic for "Muhammad Iqbal", then we can also consider other ways of disambiguating the title, such as Muhammad Iqbal (scholar), Muhammad Iqbal (philosopher), or Muhammad Iqbal (politician). The rationale originally given for this move was WP:COMMONNAME, which is a different issue. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bolding "Sir"
User:SheriffIsInTown can you explain why you are bolding Sir? In ictu oculi (talk)


 * I did give a reason in the summary line and will give it here as well. WP:HONORIFICS clearly states:

"The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name."


 *  Sh eri ff  | report  | 11:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to be what WP:HONORIFICS says to do, so I will no longer quarrel with that (although I'm a bit surprised to see it). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Work of Muhammad Iqbal
Hardly can think of any rationale to keep an article on MI's "work" separate. kashmiri TALK  20:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Not sure, what is your logic behind it but you might want to merge Works of Rabindranath Tagore into Rabindranath Tagore as well.  Sh eri ff  | report  | 20:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support unless the other article will be substantially expanded. Currently, that other article appears to just be a small collection of mostly-duplicate content (which is not the case with the Works of Rabindranath Tagore). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about giving me some time to expand it?  Sh eri ff  | report  | 23:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That might be fine, but if it remains a separate article we should make sure this article doesn't contain a lot of redundant coverage of that topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose the merge without even commenting on and without any prejudice (either way) on his British Raj political career, his works, namely in the poetry and philosophy categories, are a completely separate subject and even studied as such with doctorates on the topic. This article can certainly be expanded way beyond a stub regardless of its condition at this moment. On both counts, of content and independent notability, the topic deserves a separate article. Biography article is already well expanded and would go above the WP:MOS limit from biography alone, works can easily be expanded further with more notable works even getting their own sections in the child article. His works like Bang-e-Dara, Shikwa and Jawab e Shikwa, Tarana-e-Hindi among others have separate articles. The works article will smoothly accommodate them all as an intermediate article connecting the biography to works. On issues about possible duplicate content, the "Literary work" sections here are supposed to be a summary of the works article per WP:MOS. Some duplication is going to occur and infact the works article should even further expand on each detail if sources are available. What is and is not to be a part of the child article is a dispute for there and should not affect the merge consensus. The expansion of work specific content should go this way: over all summary in biography, topical summary in works article, full length expansion in each work's own article. To further support a separate article on Works of Iqbal, see Template:Muhammad Iqbal, Iqbal Review (a journal on his works), Iqbal Academy Pakistan (an institution on his works), Muhammad Iqbal bibliography of works about Iqbal (for some one who has a notable bibliography of works about him and related to him, an article listing and summarizing all of his own works in a single accessible article is expected from a good encyclopedia). -- lTopGunl (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: the article should be renamed to Works of Muhammad Iqbal (would need an administrative delete / move) as it is about plural; works. After the move, the article should be added as "main article" to the "Literary work" section here. -- lTopGunl (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the merge : As detailed comment of TopGunl, I agree with him.Justice007 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose the merge Agree with TopGunl. Spasage (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I do not see any further comments; I hope someone is going to close that. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The false version

 * I have gone through the page 76 of the cited source; it is the bluntly false version that does not even match the page of the book version. It does not establish the Wikipedia standard, nor the policies are accurately applied. KahnJohn27 has been asked by two editors, that the dispute should be discussed on the article talk page, but he did not value that, and even blamed me with the connection to another editor, on my talk page. He had already crossed the rule 3RR; I did not report against him because I prefer to understand the standard of the project rather reporting. I am going to rewrite the version, as the source states so that the reader should not be misled. I am here just for the improving the standard of the project even if I have to ignore the rules.Justice007 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please try reading the source. Here's a small quote from the Rajiv Gandhi's book "Eight Lives: A Study of the Hindu-Muslim Encounter" source page 76: And Edward Thompson, the British writer, claims that towards the end of his life Iqbal had to spoken to him of his "very serious reservations" about a separate Muslim state. And I didn't exceed the 3RR rule, 3 reverts in 24 hours, you have however. Also on your talk page, I said I will talk later on as I didn't ha e time then. Additionally your reason is not justifiable for breaking any rules. Despite of what reason you have it is wrong to get into edit-warring which you've been warned about another editor and you still seem bent on enforcing you views without giving a proper reason. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Additionally Brig. Kuldip Singh's "Indian Military Thought: Kurukshetra to Kargil and Future Perspectives" also says the same thing and I used it as a source which you also clearly ignored. You have cited improper and irrational reasons and despite being told to discuss first, you decided to do what you wanted. You have removed the content again here  and have given a false reason that you've "added the correct version", while in actual what you added isn't even related to it and you have removed the content again without even any real reason. You don't seem to be here to improve the standard of project, but to do as what you want. As of now I have reverted your edits and reinstated the content as you have provide no good explanation as to why it should be removed, despite not wanting to revert your illegimate action has forced me to. All of the reasons given by you and User:SheriffIsInTown have been completely false and irrational. Please do not remove sourced content without an actual reason that is rational, it is completely wrong. I won't be reverting again since it will turn this into an edit-war, but if you remove sourced content without discussion and proper reasons and continue to bluntly enforce your views and removed sourced content without discussion, then I shall report you and this is no threat. Enough is enough. Pleas stay within the rules. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, please understand, everything which is sourced doesn't go in a Wikipedia article just because it is sourced. Secondly once you introduce something in an article, it can be challenged by other editors and can be removed and it doesn't matter if it was sourced or not, the objections could be many. You want to include something in this article which you say is sourced but interpreting it in your own way and your interpretation is challenged by two editors. In such a scenario, you are supposed to start a discussion instead of edit-warring and reinstating the content. While a discussion takes place, the article stays in WP:STATUSQUO, that is before the content which you introduced.


 * Original misinterpreted edit as introduced by KahnJohn27(diff):


 * Few months before his death, an ailing Iqbal met with Jawaharlal Nehru where he criticised Jinnah and praised Nehru by saying, "What is there common between Jinnah and you? He is a politician, you are a patriot."
 * Although a strong advocater of a separate Muslim state, towards the end of his life, Iqbal expressed serious reservations against the creation of such a state and felt that it's creation would be injurious to India as a whole and Muslims especially according to British writer Edward Thompson.


 * Original text from sources:


 * "Second, the true construct of Jinnah, in the words of Mohammed Iqbal, should set at rest the debate. As Iqbal lay on his sick bed, he desired and met Nehru. Towards the end of meeting, Iqbal remarked, "What is there common between Jinnah and you? He is a politician, you a patriot." The Oxford Dictionary defines the word politician as, "a person with self-interested political concerns." Further, Edward Thompson, an eminent historian, has somewhere quoted Iqbal having told him that though he (Iqbal) advocated Pakistan, because of the position as President of one of the Muslim League sessions, he felt sure that it would be injurious to India as a whole and to Muslims specially."
 * "Nehru, in his Discovery of India, says that a few months before his death Iqbal commented to him, "What is there in common between Jinnah and you? He is a politician, you are a patriot." And Edward Thompson, the British writer, claims that towards the end of his life Iqbal had spoken to him of his "very serious reservations" about the separate Muslim state then being talked of. What are we to infer from these observations? They confirm that the Iqbal-Jinnah relationship was not always smooth, and also that the two had different conceptions of the Pakistan-to-come. They do not, however, disprove Iqbal's zeal for a Muslim homeland, or the significance he and Jinnah attached to each other. It is undeniable that Iqbal had written to Jinnah in 1937 that the latter "alone" could guide India's Muslims and that later Jinnah described Iqbal as one who "stood like a rock.""


 * Objections to these edits:


 * Brig K. Kuldip Singh, a non-notable author, should be rejected on his notability.
 * Lancer Publishers & Distributors is not a very reputable publisher.
 * Based on above two points, i am taking that source out of the equation, stuff like "injurious to India and as a whole to Muslims" is not mentioned by Rajmohan Gandhi.
 * Concentrating on two points from Gandhi's book, Iqbal's remarks to Nehru and Iqbal's expression of ":very serious reservations" to Ed Thompson. Both of these items are lacking context.
 * What was the context of the meeting between Nehru and Iqbal, how the conversation started, how ended? What was context behind Iqbal saying that Jinnah is a politician and you a patriot? Did Nehru ask Iqbal to compare them or he just blurted out from nowhere? What were they discussing to which Iqbal remarked this? We are completely lacking the context of that conversation? Did Nehru mention anything more in his book Discovery of India, that might explain the context? Was Jinnah present in this meeting because Iqbal is not a type of person who would speak ill of Jinnah behind his back?
 * Same for the expression of reservation to the "Muslim state, then being talked about". How did Iqbal express that reservation? What were Iqbal's words when he expressed the reservation? What was the Muslim state then being talked about? Did Ed Thompson and Iqbal talk about a Muslims state with different borders than what was Pakistan to be or was it the same state that Iqbal gave the conception for in 1930? Did Ed Thompson gave a proposal for some different "Muslim state" to which Iqbal expressed his reservations?
 * The points to be highlighted in Ed Thompson reference are the conclusion which is "They confirm that the Iqbal-Jinnah relationship was not always smooth, and also that the two had different conceptions of the Pakistan-to-come. They do not, however, disprove Iqbal's zeal for a Muslim homeland, or the significance he and Jinnah attached to each other. It is undeniable that Iqbal had written to Jinnah in 1937 that the latter "alone" could guide India's Muslims and that later Jinnah described Iqbal as one who "stood like a rock.""
 * As Ed Thompson is a writer himself, did he mention this meeting in one of his works, that might be a great place to look for the context of the meeting and the conversation.


 * Regardless of whether you consider my questions irrational or rational, there is definitely no consensus to include the content in dispute but actually majority point of view is against this inclusion.


 *  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 04:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, unrelated editor, why don't you participate in the discussion instead of just reverting. While others are taking time and participating in discussion, you cannot just come here and do your one click thing and revert to a version which had no consensus. I suggest you read WP:STATUSQUO and revert yourself so status quo can be maintained while discussion takes place. Just mere one click reverting is not an option here. Status quo should be maintained, discussion should take place and if there is no consensus and you want inclusion then there is DRN and RFC options which can be explored.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 17:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown Please instead of telling me what to do, first focus on yourself. I'll join the discussion when the block of the other 2 expires. You have reverted many times. This will be your last chance. If instead of waiting the discussion to be resolved you reverte again, I won't revert this time. I'll straight away complain you to the admins. And I don't see you stand much chance for not being punished for your disruptive behaviour since 2 others have already been blocked. Your choice. I was just here to tell you not to edit-war. Lakhbir87 (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

without taking a view on the rights and wrongs, I can add some info about that Ed Thompson mention. Rajmohan Gandhi's cite in Eight Lives: A Study of the Hindu-Muslim Encounter is: "Quoted by Naim in Naim (ed.), Iqbal, Jinnah and Pakistan, p186". This page appears to carry Naim's text, which includes

with the footnote You'll notice that Naim uses "letter" though Thompson says "speaking", "went on to say". This CV of Naim suggests he is an established scholar whom we would normally regard as a RS, so I'm inclined to think Thompson may explicitly refer to a letter in Enlist India for Freedom, and merely be using "say" in the general sense (as in "Thompson says") rather than asserting that Iqbal spoke to him. NebY (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The point: The version that was added to the article as;

Although a strong advocater of a separate Muslim state, towards the end of his life, Iqbal expressed serious reservations against the creation of such a state and felt that its creation would be injurious to India as a whole and Muslims especially according to British writer Edward Thompson.

referring the two books: Indian Military Thought: Kurukshetra to Kargil and Future Perspectives page:539 and Eight Lives: A Study of the Hindu-Muslim Encounter, page: 76

Further, Edward Thompson, an eminent historian, has somewhere quoted Iqbal having told him that though he (Iqbal) advocated Pakistan, because of the position as President of the Muslim League sessions, he felt sure that it would be injurious to India as a whole and to Muslims especially.

Regardless its reliability, there is no any sign or words endorsing that Iqbal was against the creation of Pakistan. The sources say;

He felt sure that would be injurious to India as a whole and to Muslims especially.

The quote, in my vision, demonstrates that Iqbal had been questioned of the consequences about the creation of Pakistan. He replied, in my imagination, bluntly that---sure---that would be injurious to India and Muslims too. The logically, every separation causes harm to both, the subject and the object. Maybe that would have expressed Iqbal in such way, but not against the creation. I had the objection to the wording of the text that displays falseness. Now is more light on the sources to reach any consensus.Justice007 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Muhammad Iqbal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050506190825/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=story_28-5-2003_pg3_6 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-5-2003_pg3_6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Wikipedia used to change history for a certain agenda. His great grandfather was Sahaz Ram Sapru who converted to Islam under certain circumstances. His genius was due to his rich lineage partly.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Muhammad Iqbal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goethezeitportal.de/fileadmin/PDF/db/wiss/goethe/bhatti_iqbal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Muhammad Iqbal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305000639/http://www.aml.org.pk/AllamaIqbal.html to http://www.aml.org.pk/AllamaIqbal.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050506190825/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-5-2003_pg3_6 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-5-2003_pg3_6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad Iqbal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100208215843/http://www.tolueislam.com/Urdu/urdu.htm to http://www.tolueislam.com/Urdu/urdu.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
A large amount of text was inserted into this article from V.S. Naipaul's book, which was amateur-ly written and not pruned per WP:UNDUE WP:WEIGHT, WP:COPYVIO and WP:QUOTEFARM. Furthermore, this line added into the lead mainly has two issues besides from a POV standpoint: the claim of "Hindu thinkers" is only sourced to Naipaul's criticism, so the usage of plural is erroneous. And without additional sources, it wasn't attributed. Lastly, assigning Iqbal's idea as an "Islamic theocracy" without supporting literature is dubious to say the least, given he himself did not talk about a theocracy. These are views and counter-views which should be presented with multiple sources and balance.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a wikipedia article not an eulogy on Muhammad Iqbal. Naipaul is a Nobel Laureate in Literature, feel free to lecture him on his "amateur-ly" written book.

An Islamic Republic whose laws are based on the Qu'ran is the quintessential example of a theocracry.

As far as these edits being "POVs", the large Pakistani flag you have on your profile speaks a lot about your impartiality...Manish2542 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with. You can't take a paragraph off of someone's book and copy-paste it here. Nobel in Literature doesn't mean anything because he's not a historian. And Manish you should refrain from commenting on the user and focus your comments on the content & the questions raised. Explain how is this due?

To whom should I reply to? The person didn't even sign his or her comment... A Nobel in Literature gives credibility and all the sources on the article are not from historians, what should we do? Remove them? I can take a paragraph from someone's book because first, that's quite common on wikipedia and secondly, that "someone" happens to be a well-known intellectual who happens to have won a Nobel Prize in Literature. Pointing out the obvious bias of the editor who has a large Pakistani flag on his profile is essential. He is publicising his bias, I can't be blamed for speaking about it. Manish2542 (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop treating this article (and talk) like a WP:SOAP. You have provided zero evidence to support the claim that Naipaul is an authority, let alone even "expert" on Iqbal. Please have a read of WP:DUE, and see where your section fails to meet it. Also, the section is essentially copy-pasted in entirety from the source (WP:QUOTEFARM) and is not meaningful in a manner that would befit Wikipedia's standards of WP:NPOV.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to make an abuse of wikipedia editing rules to further your nationalist agenda for your islamist state. Naipaul, given his credentials, has the legitimacy to comment on a poet from south asia who helped create and conceive an islamist theocracy and was directly involved in a partition that cost a million lives. This is an article on Iqbal not an eulogy of your national poet. Can you elaborate how your natinalistic bias is compliant with wikipedia's standards of WP:NPOV? Manish2542 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Reverted the last attempt by Manish2542 to push a particular POV far beyond any semblance of NPOV. One source, with one view.  Not multiple and from a questionable background for grand pronouncements.   Ravensfire  (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't find a free version of Naipaul's book, but this review discusses it. But Iqbal was a more complicated character than Naipaul makes him out to be. Nehru saw him as an exponent not of religious zealotry but of modern nationalism. His Urdu poetry was full of nationalist sentiments. Part of his vision of a Muslim state in India was a desire for Islam to “rid itself of the stamp that Arabian imperialism was forced to give it….” Nehru observed that since “Indian nationalism was dominated by Hindus and had a Hinduised look…a conflict arose in the Moslem mind.”4 In fact, Iqbal later seems to have changed his mind about the Muslim state, and came to believe that it would be harmful to India and Muslims too. According to Nehru, Iqbal turned to socialism in his last years, inspired by the splendid achievements of the Soviet Union. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to claim that supporting Pakistan in the 1930s makes him responsible for the tragedies of the Partition of India, which happened 9 years after his death. And claiming "Hindu thinkers view him" based solely on Naipaul's book is clearly POV pushing. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Iqbal Allahabad.jpg

Allama Iqbal
I can see that it's updated on Wikipedia that the nationality of Allama Iqbal is "Pakistani". Can anyone brief me that why should we play 'Saare Jahan Se Achchha' on 15th Aug and 26th Jan while hoisting the Indian National Flag if it was written by a Pakistani?

Note. - Allama Iqbal was born in 1877 and died in 1938. Pakistan was not even had taken birth till that time. S a hasnain (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ancestory
The article currently mentions that Iqbal's family converted to Islam during Zain-ul-Abidin's time. I can find no RS mention of this besides this wiki article, even the reference given for the claim states directly that Iqbal was a "Sapru" Brahmin convert. Another reference that states Iqbal's last traceable ancestor who converted to Islam is unverifiable. I was reading this article by Khushwant Singh which says that Iqbal's father was the one who converted to Islam. Seeing this I think the article should simply mention that his family converted to Islam or maybe mention Khushwant Singh's account. The Zain-ul-Abidin mention should probably be removed. Gotitbro (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding of Punabi word
He was also a poet of Punjabi. Punjabi Poetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noman1234r (talk • contribs) 07:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)