Talk:Muhammad Iqbal/Archive 5

RFC about the origin of a South Asian
There is a discussion going on regarding whether or not Muhammad Iqbal should be labeled an "Indian" in the lead section. 2 Editors have already displayed agreement that it should, however User:Idell, who is a Pakistani national with a manifest and obvious bias towards this topic, disagrees and thinks he wasn’t an Indian, and should rather be identified otherwise. The insistence on his identification as a "British Indian" makes little sense, as the specific type of state that existed at the time makes little difference to the national identity as "Indian", an identity which has existed for millennia. Furthermore, there is specific and explicit self-identification by the individual in question himself, which utilises "Indian", nothing more or less: “Rumi is Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s great master ... he names himself as Mureed-i-Hindi (the Indian disciple)" . It is evident that bias caused by nationalism is causing the display of post hoc fallacies on a public encyclopedia which is supposed to embody freedom of information and bias-free impartiality. شاه عباس (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Technically, the nationals within British India were "Indians". This is the term used in the lead of all of the biography articles of people that died before the partition in the Indian part of the sub-continent. However, the current version seems to be a compromise (because of all POV pushers from both sides of the border). Instead of the commonly used lead sentence style : XYZ is an Indian A,B, and C, we did XYZ is an A, B and C from British India, i.e removed the nationality and added a regional identifier at the end. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

How is it justified for there to be compromise on an impartial encyclopaedia where the truth is supposed to be presented? The truth is objective and one, there can't be contradictory truths. If the term was "Indian" then it should be written as "Indian". Nationalistic sentiments shouldn't come into play here. شاه عباس (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support*** calling him Indian in the lede. Per points raised by Shah Abbas, by the logic of Fylindfotberserk we should call historically Indian figures not as Indian but instead something like “from the Mughal Empire”, “from the Ghurid Empire”, “ from the Khalaj empire”. Complete nonsense. Also there can’t be “POV pushing from both sides”. How is it POV pushing when Indians ask to call a historical figure ***who called himself Indian*** as Indian? It’s simply wanting to get the facts straight. Pakistanis coping on their Indian background or heritage doesn’t matter here, it’s only POV pushing from their side Xerxes931 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree and carefully re-read my post. That was not "My Logic" but my perception of what might have happened over the years. And to expand on your examples, an Indian can be from "Gupta Empire", "Maratha Empire", "Maurya Empire" and we have used Indian consistently for those biographies..... Coming to the point, check this 2006 version where the lead sentence begins as "Muhammad Iqbal (Urdu: محمد اقبال, Hindi: मुहम्मद इकबाल) (November 9 1877–April 21 1938) was an Indian poet, writer, philosopher, and politician....". While most Pakistani POV pushers here wanted to remove "India" from the original version, which is also evident from the talk archives, I've seen atleast a few POV pushes that wanted to remove the mention of India possibly because of this. Somebody (I don't know who or when) removed Indian from the beginning of the sentence and added British India at the end. And this format has been maintained. Technically the present version is incorrect as I've already mentioned and would like to have the original wording as in the 2006 version. IMO I'm clear now? Hopefully more people will weigh in so that we get to a solid consensus here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah okay nice, I misunderstood it at first, so all the participants here seem to agree on this issue, let’s change it then ? --Xerxes931 (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be agreed by everyone here, then. There should be a proper procedure to make the lede right, and to prevent further vandalism and ahistorical points of view from altering it. شاه عباس (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait guys! An RFC typically runs for 30 days or atleast enough comments are received to reach a solid consensus. Lets ask more people to weigh in. Pinging . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with using the word Indian in the first line of the lede because Iqbal self-identified as "Indian" throughout his life. The lede needs to be neutral and needs to reflect that he is admired not only in present-day Pakistan, but also considered a very prominent poet in India. For example, his famous patriotic song Sare Jahan se Accha is used as a marching song of the Indian Armed Forces. Khestwol (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This is the typical nationalist India- POV, or should I say, anti-Pakistan POV, which seems to have become rampant again on Wikipedia. It reminds me of how it was like when the Hindu nationalist editor Rama's Arrow was editing it in 2007.  Now 13 years later we seem to have come to a full circle.  No chance.  Zero, nada, zilch.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Scratched after rereading 's post.  POV is from both sides and takes many forms.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it nationalist if there was no Pakistan when the person was alive? The Indians under the British were still Indian nationals. As per شاه عباس's source above, the subject self-identifies as an "Indian disciple". As far as POV is concerned, I remember seeing atleast a few from the Indian side that do not what him to be called Indian because of his association with the Pakistan Movement. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree and have scratched the POV implications.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't shunt the old garbage. I have written large parts of the FA India, the History of Pakistan page, Company rule in India, Presidencies and provinces of British India and large parts of British Raj, Indus Valley Civilisation, Mehrgarh, ...  I also know the  nonsense edits India-POV editors push.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the beginning lead of the History of Pakistan page: "The history of Pakistan encompasses the region of the Indus Valley,[1][2][3][4] which spans the western expanse of the Indian subcontinent and the eastern Iranian plateau.[5] The region served both as the fertile ground of a major civilisation and as the gateway of South Asia to Central Asia and the Near East. Situated on the first coastal migration route of Homo sapiens out of Africa, the region was inhabited early by modern humans.[8][9] The 9,000-year history of village life in South Asia traces back to the Neolithic (7000–4300 BCE) site of Mehrgarh in Pakistan,[10][11][12] and the 5,000-year history of urban life in South Asia to the various sites of the Indus Valley Civilization, including Mohenjo Daro and Harappa." I seem to remember some of those events occurred before the night of 14 August 1947.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course it was called India then. The lead paragraph of British Raj which I wrote says that, but it is not called India now, only the Republic of India is, and they don't really speak Urdu there that much any more, though they pretend they do by calling it Hindustani (and equating it will Bollywood Hindi). Please. This fixation on sticking in India by hook or by crook is the worst form of nationalism on Wikipedia. I'm not saying you guys are deliberately or self-consciously engaging in it, but it does not improve Wikipedia. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the intemperate language. I have scratched it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, for everyone's information: Indian subcontinent is primarily now geographical and geophysical term, and it is in that sense it is used in the quoted sentences above; South Asia is the cultural or political term. Kamla Harris is the first South Asian American US senator.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The main thing to watch out for on WP is: The British Raj was commonly called India during the period before 1947. After 1947, if the two successor states of the Raj had been called "Hindustan" and "Pakistan," there would have been no issue saying Iqbal was an Indian poet.  People would automatically understand that he was a poet who lived during the British Raj.  However, one of the successor states,  came to be called "India," though a much-reduced one.  If we now say, "Iqbal was in Indian poet," it immediately begs the question, "Which India?"  So we have to disambiguate and clarify and use "British Raj" or "British India" instead (as he lived in the Punjab province, directly administered by the British, and not, say, in Kashmir, a princely state, though he was a Kashmiri by descent). That is the main issue here and in other historical pages.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I get your points but I wonder why you get so hyper in situations that vaguely resemble an Indian POV. It looked like a simple case of nationality of the person when he was alive. That's probably why the RfC was started and Note that it was started by a non-Indian user, based on their source(s). You know how I work, I stick to sources and guidelines. That's why POV pushers often call me an anti-XYZcountry. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just Indian POV, all POV. See the Talk Kamala Harris page.  It was even written up in the Atlantic (magazine).  It is just that in South Asian issues, India-POV editors abound.  The Pakistan-POV editors have disappeared.  How ludicrous is the fact that in pages such as Urdu, and all its related pages, outside of the linguists, it is basically the India-POV editors who are active.  And I can tell they can't read or write Urdu beyond maybe first grade.  I do get worked up initially then eventually cool down.  I do apologize.  :)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

With my luck, I just noticed that you had made some edits to Urdu! I did not mean you in the remarks above. But look at the bizarre four sources used to cite "... or Modern Standard Urdu is often described as a Persianised standard register of the Hindustani language.[14][15][16][17]" Are those Urdu sources? Of course not. Contrast this now with the June 2020 entry in the third editions of the Oxford English Dictionary, the premier reference work for English: "Urdu: An Indo-Aryan language of northern South Asia (now esp. Pakistan), closely related to Hindi but written in a modified form of the Arabic script and having many loanwords from Persian and Arabic." This is June 2020. And the Urdu article is citing an English literature book, etc etc. You see the difference? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I made sure to maintain the version that resulted from the discussion you were also involved earlier this year, but I was out for 4 months. Didn't know what happened in the mean time. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. I wasn't really involved in editing the lead, only gathering sources, and then I became distracted.  But if you want to test my theory, replace the text based on obscure sources with a paraphrase of the OED and see how quickly they will appear out of the woodwork to edit war with you.  The "Hindustani" (who uses that expression in Pakistan or India?) POV is so firmly entrenched that there is even a youtube video, which may or may not have been made by one of the editors; I can't be sure, but it mimics the WP article on Hindustani.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Hindustani language.
 * No thank you . You can rediscuss though ;) - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead looks like a complete mess now, there is an RFC going on about the lede where the majority of the users disagree with that lede and you just make it even worse without consensus?! Also stop being so paranoid about “Indian-POV”, neither me, nor the person who opened this RFC are Indian, so where are you getting this from? The lede will get fixed per the consensus of this RFC.--Xerxes931 (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, RfC's on Wikipedia are only about what is plausible. How does it matter where you are from? You are espousing the India-POV that has long been a part of this page.  India-POV does not mean the POV of Wikipedia editors who have Indian citizenship; it means a POV that promotes the various conceits and ideologies of the Republic of India.  You barely have 600 edits, which is fine, but you are attempting to argue with the author of the  Featured Article India and also of the British Raj, by calling the lead a "mess" and Wikilawyering about an RFC that is not neutrally framed and therefore invalid." What does "Indian" mean during the British Raj, when at different times Aden (now in Abu Dhabi), Myanmar (Burma), Singapore were all in the Raj.  Are we going to say that Burmese leaders of that time such as Aung San and U Nu were Indians? Are we going to say Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan were Indian politicians and anti-colonial nationalists? This RFC is meaningless. Iqbal was born and raised, and died in the Punjab province of Presidencies and provinces of British India (another article I have written) to which British India wikilinks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PS We are also beholden to the convention in other third-party tertiary sources. Third-party means those which have no stake in this dispute.  The foremost of that is Encyclopaedia Britannica.  What does Britannica say about Iqbal.  Here is the lead of its Iqbal page written by Sheila D. McDonough Professor of Religion, Sir George Williams University, Montreal. Author of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Maker of Modern Pakistan and others. "Muhammad Iqbal, in full Sir Muhammad Iqbal, also spelled Muhammad Ikbal, (born November 9, 1877, Sialkot, Punjab, India [now in Pakistan]—died April 21, 1938, Lahore, Punjab), poet and philosopher known for his influential efforts to direct his fellow Muslims in British-administered India toward the establishment of a separate Muslim state, an aspiration that was eventually realized in the country of Pakistan. He was knighted in 1922.'"  Where does it say "Indian?"  It says only "British-administered India" which is = British India (not British Raj which is = British India + Princely States)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So because you got more edits than me your opinion values more ? I don’t care whatever article you’ve created, the fact is that a source has been provided that Iqbal called himself Indian, this has nothing to do with the Raj ruling there, the region of Punjab was historically part of India prior to the Raj rule too, this is a fact which you can’t deny. And Iqbal called himself Indian, no matter what you say or how many edits you have --Xerxes931 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right about my boasting. I have scratched those comments and apologize.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * He did not live in Mughal Punjab, Afghan Punjab, or Sikh Punjab.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Many domiciled British in India called themselves "Anglo-Indian" during the 19th century and the early 20th. But the word "Anglo-Indian" has a different meaning now, just as India has a different meaning now = Republic of India We don't call Kipling or his father John Lockwood Kipling, or the hunter Jim Corbett Anglo-Indian.  See Stanley Henry Prater; we don't call him Anglo-Indian.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PS There are other issues with the phrasing of the RFC: what will you propose to link "Indian" to? Currently, on Wikipedia it links to a dab page, Indian.  It has links, the first of which is Indian people, a POV page which begins with "'Indians are the nationals and citizens of India, the second most populous nation in the world, containing 17.50% of the world's population. The term 'Indian' refers to nationality, rather than a particular ethnicity or language; the Indian nationality consists of dozens of regional ethno-linguistic groups, reflecting the rich and complex history of the country.'"  "National," however, links to Indian nationality law, which says nothing about the use of "Indian" retroactively about people living in the past, only to their descendants who are or applying for citizenship of the Republic of India.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree شاه عباس . Putting British everywhere is being the imperialist one Fowler&fowler. Why do you put British in front of Pakistan and India? Zakaria1978 عوامی نيشنل پارٹی زندہ باد (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Really, Imperialist it is, says Awami National Party Zindabad (Is that allowed on Wikipedia?). You don't have any edits on this page.  This RfC has barely begun.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am more than willing to take it off, show me where it violates Wikipedia policy. I think this is more of your British imperialist-POV. I bet you used Google translate to figure that out. Zakaria1978 عوامی نيشنل پارٹی زندہ باد (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OH, and another thing, is there a reason that you have been promoting Indian and Hindu nationalist pieties on Wikipedia since your arrival in March 2020.  I'm wise to them.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you being serious? I am a liberal and a progressive, not a bigot. Living in the UAE has allowed me to interact with other people from the subcontinent, where I have realized our similarities. I am going through now and dissecting your edits. Any reason why you are focused on being divisive and dividing everywhere? Zakaria1978 عوامی نيشنل پارٹی زندہ باد (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And pray tell where you will be dissecting them? India, British Raj, Partition of India, 2020 Delhi riots, Kashmir, ... of most of which I am the chief writer. Be warned that there are ARBIPA discretionary sanctions in place in them.  If you attempt to revert in the cavalier fashion you have just done, you could be blocked.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * More and more imperialist POV from your end. Listen, you cannot order me what I can and cannot do. Do I make myself clear? I undid your changes because not a single body agrees with you here. I have been looking at your edits and you are using Wikipedia to make divisions. I will be looking at your edits carefully to see what you are doing and if I feel the need, of course, I will have to correct the articles. Zakaria1978 عوامی نيشنل پارٹی زندہ باد (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

But no one here seems to have countered my arguments. (And repeating "imperialist POV" is not how we respond to arguments on Wikipedia.) I have attempted to make a point that someone calling themselves Anglo-Indian in the 19th century had a different meaning than the same in the late 20th century or the 21st. Similarly, in the early 20th century India comprised the geographical extent of the British Raj; in 2020 it means Republic of India. Just as we cannot say Jim Corbett was an Anglo-Indian hunter and naturalist, we cannot say Iqbal was an Indian Muslim. A secondary point is: what will you link Indian to? Please answer precisely, not in hollow talk. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been editing WP now and then, not very often. I agree with User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler with regards to his comments on Zakariya. I'm not sure if this editor (Zakariya) really is a follower of Awami national Party, a Pakistan based political party, or an Indian-origin wikipedian hiding behind a fake identity. He has a history of showcasing pro-India/Hindu sentiments on WP. His edits & behaviour on WP articles relating to Afghanistan & Pakistan have been HIGHLY unconstructive. I for sure am not going to take his comments objectively. However, I agree that Iqbal is Punjabi-origin poet closely associated with Pakistan movement born Britiah-India. I would suggest mentioning him as 'British-Indian Poet of Punjabi-Kashmiri origin closely associated with the Pakistani movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.68 (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 203.135.47.68, We do not write ethno-linguistic origin int he lead as per WP:ETHNICITY. So "..Punjabi-Kashmiri origin.." will not be added. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think Fowler&fowler is the only user in this discussion who is against using "Indian" (with a possible wikilink to Indian people) in the lede. He undid all my recent edits. Isn't it so? Khestwol (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * An RFC, which lasts one month, is not a count of votes, but an assessment of the weight of opinion by a closer.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, "Saare Jahan see Achcha" is used as a marching song by the Indian Armed Forces. Did Iqbal compose the music?  Do the Indian Armed Fores sing it out aloud?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally this RFC violates the guidelines for stating an RFC. It is not neutral.  The nominator  will need to withdraw it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Fowler&amp;fowler has already explained the reasons. Describing Iqbal as "Indian" would be anachronistic and misleading since "Indian" in 2020 and "Indian" in 1938 don't have the same meaning. -- Zayeem  (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this were Iqbal writing this, I would have said, یہ  مصرع   دوبارہ پڑھیں  (Please read this line of poetry again, i.e. Encore)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think what’s not clear is that Iqbal did not call himself “British-Indian” or something like that, he specifically called himself Al-Hindi(The Indian), as opposed to one of his role model Rumi, Al-Rumi(The Anatolian). If the only problem here is what exactly we should link at indian then Hindustan would be the best option and of course not the modern day Republic of India.--Xerxes931 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as while it is maybe technically correct to call Iqbal an Indian, it is misleading to the modern reader to refer to people from what would become Pakistan as Indian.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Muhammad Iqbal was an Indian for most of his life, and he referred to himself as an "Indian". He should be called "Indian" on this article. To say anything else is to just WP:RGW. Mukt (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, needless controversy which will always be prone to edit warring per . I don't see a reason why the description "Muslim poet in British India" is not accurate. If necessary, we can add in brackets that the region in question is now part of Pakistan given Iqbal's significance to that country.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not saying anything about nationality, as by the 1930s Iqbal's views on nationality had come to embrace the larger Muslim ummah, witness his Tarana-e-Milli, "Chin-o-arab hamara ..." We are saying simply Muslim poet born in British India, which he was.  British India = those regions of the British Raj that were directly administered by the UK government, as opposed to those such as princely states that were only indirectly governed, i.e. the native rulers had nominal sovereignty under British paramountcy.  Britannica for example says the same, as I've already explained above: "Muhammad Iqbal, in full Sir Muhammad Iqbal, (born November 9, 1877, Sialkot, Punjab, India [now in Pakistan]—died April 21, 1938, Lahore, Punjab), poet and philosopher known for his influential efforts to direct his fellow Muslims in British-administered India toward the establishment of a separate Muslim state, an aspiration that was eventually realized in the country of Pakistan. He was knighted in 1922.'"  No one is saying Indian, British Indian, Pakistani, etc etc. I hope this is clear.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The whole point is that British-India is completely irrelevant in this context, no matter which state rules, it doesn't change his ethnicity. Is Rumi called to be a "poet in the Khwarezmian empire"? Is Avicenna described as a polymath in the Samanid Empire? No matter which dynasty or kingdom is in charge, it does not change the ethnicity of a person which Iqbal defined for himself as "Hindi", that is Indian.--Xerxes931 (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't dig a hole deeper than you have already done. "Indian" is ethnicity?  India is and has been a multi-ethnic society.  The India page says that in the lead.  See South Asian ethnic groups  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This RfC is a bit funny, as I can see people are voting before there is a proposal. What are you people supporting and opposing? What is the proposal?
 * And what is the argument against "Muslim poet born in British India"? Hostilities, attacks and rants are not arguments. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment One alternative would be describing him as Kashmiri or Punjabi. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, that will violate WP:ETHNICITY. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What is exactly wrong with "Muslim poet born in British India"?
 * It has zero ethnic tension and zero nationalistic PoV. It also has full factuality and verifiability. And it identifies the subject quite adequately.
 * Unless someone is dying to push their PoV, there should be zero problem with "Muslim poet born in British India". Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You said it. :) I've been watching this page for 13 years.  The general POV is to be a pain in the sides of the Pakistanis by sticking "Indian" anywhere you can find based on the anomaly of "Indian" usage. It was the problem when an openly Hindu nationalist editor and admin to boot was editing this page, had taken it successfully to FAC in 2007, and it is again now.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PS And the general response to the above remark is: I'm not Indian, I'm from the banks of the Kabul River, the shores of the Caspian Sea, Samarkand, Bokhara, .... and whatnot. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am really mystified by this strong urge to include "Indian", "Pakistani", "British Indian" and what not in the lead, knowing that there is no one answer in that line of identification (he was all three, for god's sake, and, yes, that's perfectly possible). I am sure that anyone who is trying to include any such dispute into the lead is not here to build an encyclopedia. Me not from India either, though one of the participants here keep mouthing me for pushing "Indian" PoV.  Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I've maintained the version that said "...Allama Iqbal, was a poet, philosopher, theorist, and barrister in British India", without the 'Muslim' part till this RfC. Also had a small consensus/discussion above in favor of "British Indian". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, I saw that consensus, but it didn't advance any clarity. British Indian, sadly, is confusing, it can be applied to the domiciled British in India, among other people. Iqbal may have had a British Indian passport when he traveled, but he and the other Indian nationalist disputed Britain's hold on India. We never say anywhere Gandhi was a British Indian freedom fighter or Tagore was a British Indian poet, or Mandela was a Britsh/Boer/Afrikaans South African revolutionary. Iqbal moreover had a double dispute. Unlike Gandhi and those whom we call Indian nationalists, Iqbal did not believe that there was one underlying nationality among the natives of British India. And he wasn't the first. The Wikipedia biographies of Syed Ahmad Khan, Aga Khan III, Khwaja Salimullah, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, all people who disputed the one nation notion of British India, carry "Muslim" in the lead sentence, or soon after. This I think is the gist of the problem here. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * FA status Muhammad Ali Jinnah doesn't make any mention of his religion in the lead sentence, I think this one should not have it either. The use of "Muslim" in the lead sentence is far more problematic than the different renditions of "Indian" as nationality in the lead. Muslim is not a national badge. If Iqbal had been a Mufti or some religious leader, that would have been different IMO. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware it had become an FA. I like Wehwalt, so I won't dispute it, but even a secular Muslim such as Jinnah (which Iqbal was not) was a Muslim nationalist; he had become one by the time of his return from England in the 1930s, and there was no doubt about it by the time of the Lahore Resolution.  Certainly, the British had come to regard him as a Muslim leader and the league as the sole representative of India's Muslims after the decisive 1946 elections.  See Ian Copeland's reference at the bottom of Talk:India/Archive_48 which led to the inclusion of two sentences in the lead of the FA India.  I'm sure I can dig up respectable references for the characterization of Jinnah as a Muslim nationalist. (There is another good reason for me to not touch Jinnah; Wehwalt has a much longer fuse than mine, much more temperamentally suited to take on the nationalists that must inevitably populate that page as well, and most likey he hasn't made the enemies among them that I have. So, his overall management there is much better for encyclopedicity.  But the main point here is that Iqbal was Muslim.  To not consider him so (awwal o akhir, alpha to omega) is to make the mistake of the mid 20th century Bollywood rendition of one of his supreme songs of spiritual love as a prostitutes song-and-dance for a decadent Nawab.  See the example below.  If Jinnah was the political founder of Pakistan, Iqbal was the spiritual founder, and Islam was the foundation of that spiritual identity. I'm sure I can easily find sources that attest to that.  There is no doubt in my mind.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For Jinnah, see Wolpert's Shameful flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India page 3, which says, "M. A. Jinnah, the most brilliant Anglophile Muslim nationalist leader." Wolpert is also the author of Jinnah's biography, but I'm too sleepy right now to rummage in my study for that book. Wolpert, even in death, is stingy about allowing page views on Google for most of his books.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And here is one for Iqbal, Sources of Indian Tradition: Modern India and Pakistan, ed. Embree et al, Columbia University Press (see page 205: "MUHAMMAD IQBAL: POET AND PHILOSOPHER OF THE ISLAMIC REVIVAL Syed Ahmed had brought rationalism and the desire for knowledge and progress to the Indian Muslims; Muhammad Iqbal brought them inspiration and a philosophy. Next to the Quran, there is no single influence upon the consciousness of the Pakistani intelligentsia so powerful as Iqbal’s poetry. In his own time it kindled the enthusiasm of Muslim intellectuals for the values of Islam and rallied the Muslim community once again to the banner of their faith. For this reason Iqbal is looked upon today as the spiritual founder of Pakistan." I briefly reference this below as well.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
What is Punjab, British India (now in Pakistan) supposed to mean? Not all of the Punjab province of British India went to Pakistan. Iqbal's is a complicated short biography. Generally on Wikipedia we reference "nationality" when it is not disputed, when it the same as citizenship, and where nationalism already has deep roots in a society. None of that was true in Iqbal's instance.
 * (a) His family is from Kashmir (and he has written in Persian of the land (and its Muslim peasants) being sold for pennies by the British after the British victory in the Anglo-Sikh wars to the Dogras, "How cheap was the sale!" (his words in translation). They were already exiled in some sense in the Punjab,
 * (b) in his early 20s he went through a brief phase of ecumenical nationalist writings (his children's songs: Parinde ki fariyad ("Aata hai yaad mujh ko guzra hua zamana, Voh baaGh ki bahaareN voh sab ka chahchahana, ...; one of the first animal rights poems); Gillaharie aur pahar (after Emerson's Squirrel and the mountain); Hindustani BachchoN ka Qaumi Geet ("Chisti ne jis zamiN pe paiGhame haq sunaya, Nanak ne jis chaman meiN wahdat ka geet gaya"); Tarana-e-Hindi ("Saare jahaN see achcha HindositaN hamaara, ham bulbuleN haiN us ki, ...") and some adult ones (e.g. Naya Shivala ("Patthar ki mooratoN meiN samjha hai too Khuda hai. Khaake watan ka mujh ko har zarra devata hai.")
 * (c) but then he went to Europe to study and upon his return his outlook has changed, a kind of anti-nationalist veering toward a global Islam.  Some poems from this time are known both in India and Pakistan, but even these have been interpreted differently.  For example, kabhi ai haqeeqat-e-muntazar, a religious love song
 * was sung by a dancing girl in a Bollywood movie in 1966
 * and as a religious song by Pakistan's leading qawwali singers Fareed Ayaz and Abu Mohd 50 years later


 * (d) But after the late 1920s, he was a Muslim intellectual and poet. I can easily find the sources, but I thought I'd give a more evocative treatment of Iqbal (See, for example, Ainslee Embree et al Sources of the Indian tradition, Columbia University Press., but there are many more.  The Britannica article on Iqbal is a good one.)  And Khestwal please don't promote unencyclopedic nonsense.  We already have enough problems on this place to afford geographic ones.   In other words, replacing "Sialkot" with "Punjab" (which by the way in British times general took the definite article "the"), replacing "born in" with "from" is to precisely make the characterization ethic, for what is the difference between "Punjabi" and "from the Punjab?" Precious little, as the OED says, "Punjabi (adj): Of or relating to the Punjab, its inhabitants, or its language."  So, if you want to avoid an ethnic characterization, you should remove of/from the Punjab.  "Born in" btw is not an ethnic characterization, only a location of birth. The Thackeray page says: "William Makepeace Thackeray (/ˈθækəri/; 18 July 1811 – 24 December 1863) was an English novelist, author and illustrator, who was born in India."  Not everyone is a sleepy citizen of a sleepy undisputed nation; more specific characterizations might be needed, as in Thackeray, or Iqbal.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PS Upon rereading your edit, it doesn't look too bad.  So why don't we walk around in it for a while to see how it fits. Thanks.  :)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The perfect solution, in my viewpoint, is to write that Iqbal was an "Indian poet" or "Indian Muslim poet", because only then we can avoid phrases like "born in British India" or "from British India". Also we should check that the lede of Bhagat Singh, who like Iqbal, was also born in current Pakistani Punjab and died in Lahore before the Partition of India, states that he was an "Indian socialist revolutionary". While the lede at Bagha Jatin, who was born in current Bangladesh and died before the Partition, states that he "was an Indian freedom fighter". So please clarify it for us, do you think it was the Muslim religion of Iqbal which makes him a "non-Indian" on Wikipedia? Khestwol (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you not reading what I have written upstairs? Bhagat Singh or Jatin Mukherjee never said that the India the British ruled was composed of two nations. Iqbal, Jinnah, Syed Ahmad Khan, Aga Khan III, Khwaja Salimullah did.  All their pages have Muslim as their main identity, not Indian.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are wrong here or trying to promote a revisionist history propaganda (taught to children in Pakistan studies). Iqbal never wanted the Partition of India or the creation of an independent Muslim country separate from India. He only wanted a large Muslim province by amalgamating Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, and Balochistan into a big North-Western province within the undivided India. He also never used the word "Pakistan" in his addresses. I am sure you know that Islam is a religion, which is not the same as nationality and citizenship. Iqbal never claimed to be "not Indian". Khestwol (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also read, despite what Pakistan studies alleges: if one were to read Iqbal’s seminal presidential address in the historical context, it becomes clear that his vision never actually called for the partitioned Muslim state of Pakistan. Khestwol (talk) 06:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

See my response to the replies of Fylind. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf in A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge University Press, 2012, (see page 144): "Hindu and Muslim movements also shared a focus on devotional theism and the identification of personal models for emulation and worship. Both Harischandra and Bankimchandra in Bengal celebrated Krishna, particularly the Krishna of the epics, as an ideal man committed to action. Such arguments strikingly parallel those of the Punjabi Muslim poet and philosopher Muhammad Iqbal (1876-1938), who similarly celebrated historic models of action in contrast to an inward-looking spiritualism that romanticized ‘the East’ while scorning its worldly achievements." Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And here is Peter Robb, Professor of History at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and a major historian of India, in A History of India (pages 216-217):"By the 1920s, despite an appearance of harmony under the inspiration of Gandhi and anti-colonialism, the religious ‘communities’ were already polarized politically. An ideology of cultural and even ethnic separation, in a nationalist climate, naturally gave rise to demands for a political ‘homeland’ which would express and preserve these differences; the poet and Muslim League president, Muhammad Iqbal, argued as much in a celebrated speech in 1930." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose it will be strange to do so and there will be too much confusion. His citizenship may be written as so but before that this is a big problem as to people of that era and this should now be solved once and for all. First of all this Indian and British Indian thing should be determined. I concur with and it was also discussed recently at 's talkpage and I agree with 's suggestions there and a similar approach should be made here as well. USaamo (t@lk) 14:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there is a simple way to look at this. If we're talking about a specific place that ended up in either India or Pakistan, we can add the current nation it belongs to. So, Lahore, Punjab, British India (in present day Pakistan or in present day Punjab, Pakistan) is fine. If, however, the place ended up in both nations, we should not add the qualifier. Punjab, British India (now in Pakistan) is confusing because Punjab is in both places. In such cases, leave it as Punjab, British India. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it's high time to give it a proper policy shape to prevent further "nationality wars". This article is surely not the only victim of this sort of disputes. -- Zayeem  (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with RegentsPark. I had suggested to same to  but he proceeded to edit war. Eventually, I let it go, but that construction has not sat well with me.  As RP says, the Punjab was divided.  Saying "Punjab British India now in Pakistan" is confusing. I suggest that we reinstate the original wording:  ... born in Sialkot, Punjab, British India (now in Pakistan).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why South Asian is a better descriptor compared to British Indian in the current version. South Asian is not a nationality. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * South Asian (linked to South Asia) references a region, not a nationality. Nationality in colonial contexts can be problematic.  What was Gandhi?  Was he a British Indian nationalist who campaigned for the end of British India?  On the Gandhi page we simply say "Indian."  It works in part because he lived to see the birth of an independent India.  For people who died before 1947, it is more problematic.  "British India" is a much-misunderstood term.  Most people think it is the same as British Raj, but it is not.  It references only the regions of the Raj under the direct administration of the British, i.e. not the princely states.  Iqbal lived in the Punjab which was in British India (after 1846), but Gandhi was from a small princely state.  What citizenship can we assign him?  Compounded with this is the difficulty of usage.  "Poetry of British India," for example, does not mean the poetry written in India under British Rule; it does not even mean the poetry written in the regions of direct British Administration.  It means the poetry written by the British in India, whether domiciled or visiting (see here) not by the Indians they were subjugating.  For all these reasons, "South Asian," linked to South Asia,  with the meaning of living in South Asia during the period of notability (see MOS:CONTEXTBIO), is the best option.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)  PS And David Lelyveld, whose Encyclopedia article on Iqbal I have now referenced, does the same, i.e. call him South Asian.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. fair enough. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Greatest" is unquestionably POV
Yesterday, I removed the phrase 'whose poetry in Urdu and Persian is considered to be among the greatest of the modern era' from the lead ¶ on the grounds that: 1) it was not POV; 2) it was not supported by the cited source. undid this change with the comment: 'Of Urdu there is no doubt; Persian I'm not sure. In any case that is not reason to remove the sentence and leave only the inspiration of Pakistan to be Iqbal's notability. I'll find another source; meanwhile if you'd like you can start a talk page thread per BRD. It is a little foolhardy (beyond just BOLD that is) to make such a major change in such an old article.' This is wrong-headed on multiple counts:
 * 1) The lead ¶ did, in fact, still mention his notability as a poet.
 * 2) The removal of one unsubstantiated opinion from a relatively long introductory section is far from a major change.
 * 3) & this is well within the normal cycle of BRD: It's not beyond bold—it's not even bold to follow basic Wikipedia policy.

Addressing others with hauteur does not make for better editing or a better encyclopædia. When there's no discussion of a matter on a Talk page, an edit like this is actually pretty de rigueur. The wording as it stood was that of fan pæans—not an encyclopædia. The absence of an agent or alternative viewpoints (eg, Faiz Ahmed Faiz has also been identified as "the greatest poet in Urdu in the twentieth century") presents a point of view (widespread, in this case, but not universal) as fact.

Fowler&fowler then proceeded to make a POV statement POV-ier: The poetry is now no longer just among the greatest in Urdu in the twentieth century, but is in fact the greatest. However, the citation is a far more useful one. I am changing the wording to match the citation a little more closely (the present is not misleading, but the absence of agent creates an air of unquestionability). Pathawi (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "whose" whether introducing a restrictive clause (1836   W. Irving Astoria xli   To feast upon the horses whose blood they had so vaingloriously drunk.) or nonrestrictive (1820   J. Keats Lamia ii, in Lamia & Other Poems 44   The Gods, whose dreadful images Here represent their shadowy presences.) is used all the time in the English language. On the other hand, "while" with a common meaning of "whereas," sets up a contrast, which is not being suggested.  The phrasing has been present in the article for a very long time, years.  There is no doubt that Iqbal was the greatest poet in Urdu of the 20th century.  No one has even obliquely suggested another as a contrast.  If you think there is one, please enlighten me with a source.  Iqbal is not a poet about whose work we need to disambiguate in lawyerly language. I'm happy to add a couple of other sources.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now added two more sources. One is Sheila McDonough's Britannica article on Iqbal. None have an agent, only the blanket statement. I really should not have to do this for someone about whom there is such unanimous body of opinion.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble grasping what sort of editor I'm working with, here. On the one hand, you're quite rude for what appears to be no reason. On the other, you're making extra work for yourself. A few items, then a proposal:
 * I have no objection to introducing clauses with 'whose', & I don't think a reasonable reading of anything I've written would suggest that. I found the phrasing 'a poet whose poetry' to be poorly constructed.
 * If you object to my making syntactic edits because we haven't got consensus, then you really ought not to make substantive edits.
 * I don't think & never stated that the claim that most critics considered Iqbal to be the greatest poet in Urdu of the twentieth century needed more sources than the first you provided. You're doing that to yourself, then griping about it. Twenty more sources won't solve the problem I'm seeing: I'm saying that the wording 'is considered' without an agent is a problem for NPOV. Check out WP:SUBSTANTIATE. It is, in fact, fairly easy to find sources that describe Faiz Ahmed Faiz as the greatest Urdu poet of the twentieth century. This is not my opinion: I generally think that describing any poet as the 'best' of any large category is childish. I don't think that we need to balance five pro-MI sources with five pro-FAF sources, or even mention FAF. I think we need to specify the agent. I think that's in the spirit of WP:NPOV & specifically WP:SUBSTANTIATE.
 * The point in which we're in disagreement is that I want something like: 'Many critics consider Iqbal's Urdu poetry to be among the greatest of the twentieth century.' while you would prefer: 'Iqbal's Urdu poetry is considered to be among the greatest of the twentieth century.' (I also think that first sentence is atrocious, but that's a matter of style. It's intelligible.) If you disagree on the matter of NPOV, I suggest we seek a third opinion. Pathawi (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please post on the talk pages of some FAs requesting that "many critics consider" be added: Chinua Achebe ("often considered his masterpiece"), Mário de Andrade ("he virtually created modern Brazilian poetry with the publication of his Paulicéia Desvairada (Hallucinated City) in 1922."), Maya Angelou ("Angelou is best known for her series of seven autobiographies, which focus on her childhood and early adult experiences."), Neville Cardus ("His contributions to these two distinct fields in the years before the Second World War established his reputation as one of the foremost critics of his generation."), Rachel Carson ("whose book Silent Spring and other writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement."), Emily Dickinson ("Little known during her life, she has since been regarded as one of the most important figures in American poetry."), James Joyce ("He contributed to the modernist avant-garde movement and is regarded as one of the most influential and important writers of the 20th century."), Franz Kafka ("was a German-speaking Bohemian novelist and short-story writer, widely regarded as one of the major figures of 20th-century literature"), Harold Pinter (" Pinter was one of the most influential modern British dramatists with a writing career that spanned more than 50 years."), Edgar Allan Poe ("He is widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and of American literature as a whole, and he was one of the country's earliest practitioners of the short story."), ... William Shakespeare ("widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's greatest dramatist.") The FAs constitute WP's best work, guided by WP:FACRITERIA. Otherwise, if you'd like, you can begin an RFC, advertise on WP:INDIA, WP:PAKISTAN, WP:POETRY, WP:LITERATURE, etc. Please examine the diff which shows what you had proposed and what there is now. The change happened before I read your labored exegesis above. This is my final reply.  I really do not have any more time to waste.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to have made quite a lot of time to waste so far. I'll post the 3O request. Pathawi (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I tinker with all sorts of leads of WP articles to achieve maximum accuracy. I didn't say 3O. I don't have time for that.  I said per BRD seek consensus here first.  It takes time.  Usually a month.  If there isn't any, then start an RfC.  Iqbal to too big a topic to depend on the ruminations of a third person. Again, a clear NO to 3O.  I hope you get it.  You have no history of editing this page; no history of editing Urdu literature pages; you're making farfetched claims that you can find scholarly sources asserting that Faiz was the greatest Urdu poet of the 20th century.  Please do.  If you can find four of the caliber I have, I'll quit Wikipedia for six months.
 * Off the top of my head I can come up with: Ada Jafri, Zehra Nigah, Ahmad Faraz, Iftikhar Arif, Fehmida Riaz, Kishwar Naheed, Firaq Gorakhpuri, who have written poems that match Faiz's, whether their overall oeuvre matches his, may be debatable. They certainly have Selections (Intikhab-e-kalam) in OUP's series. So before wasting more of my time, please make sure you know what you are getting into.  You can't just walk off the street in a topic in which I have collected and examined a large number of sources: e.g. [] to name one.  To do so without knowledge of the field is disruptive.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am warning you : if you continue disruption, I will request admin help. Again, be warned, and be very careful about what you are doing here. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC) : I don't take kindly to the warning. I am making fairly routine edits, all of which I think have improved the article. I have removed significant redundancy while trying not to lose any information, & I've corrected an error in the Arabic. There is nothing disruptive about this. This article isn't your turf, & I'm editing it in a way that should, frankly, be welcome. Pathawi (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The warning is not about your edits to the article, which are welcome. I thank you for the correction.  The warning is about your jumping the gun to start a 3O discussion on this talk page.  The way to do it is: a) consensus, failing which b) RfC. Also, I am holding your feet to the fire for finding the reliable scholarly sources for the remarkable claim: Faiz is the greatest in Urdu of the 20th C.  For Iqbal, we know there are quite a few scholarly ones.  There are four in the article.  I can find four more.  But please find them for Faiz: in the major encyclopedias as I have, in the academic publishers.  (Here by the way Victor Kiernan's translation of Faiz (OUP 1971) with quote:   This is ultimately not about Wikilawyering, or figuring out dispute resolution; it is about bringing the sources to the readers' attention, and thereby making our sentences more accurate. Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 3O only works if all parties are operating in good faith. I don't believe that's the case, & I've taken no action in that direction since you stated your objection. (For whatever admin Fowler&amp;fowler calls in: That objection is on my personal Talk page.) If you think there's something disruptive about anything I've done, I strongly encourage you to follow up on your warning & seek admin assistance. Pathawi (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, since your heart seems to be in the right place,, why don't you please read the few pages on Iqbal in Omar Qureshi's 2th century Urdu literature (starting page 10) and help improve the article? It does say, "The Khilafat was the formative period for the poetry of Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), who is undoubtedly the towering figure in Urdu poetry this century," but that is not the point now.  I feel with your knowledge of Arabic (and by inference of the Urdu script), you can be helpful in paraphrasing the material on Iqbal and improving the article, which I agree is in poor shape.  I have edited only the first paragraph in the lead.  So please help.  :)  One of my constant gripes is the surfeit of people who can't read the Perso-Arabic script, but never fail to declaim on matters Perso-Arabic.  (I can read Urdu, which means I can read the Perso-Arabic script.)  So please help, again.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so let's wrap this up, . I've now changed the lead sentence to meet you half-way (perhaps more).  Please help improve the rest of the article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's midnight in the Sudan & I'm going to bed. I've finished superficial edits to the biography section. I'll continue after work tomorrow. Pathawi (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Allama
Reference no. 11, Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English (https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/platts_query.py?qs=allama&matchtype=default) does NOT mention that the term "allama" comes from Persian, as stated in the article.

In fact, the entry says: "ʻallāma (for A. علامة", which is a well-known fact. علامة comes from Arabic, and the Persian form of it is derived from Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:5D07:E706:DCBE:5D8B:15A6:81B9 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The entry that you have linked to actually reads:"علامه ʻallāma (p. 763) ʻallāma, adj. Very ..."


 * According to the preface, "P" refers to the origin of the word from or via Persian language. The part in brown colour asks you to look at the entry of another word that is derived from Arabic (A.). Idell (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Nationality
Hi, you have recently added Pakistani as Iqbal's nationality in the lead, but he died before the creation of the state of Pakistan. I restored the older version's "in British India" phrase as he was technically a British Indian citizen as per WP:NATIONALITY. Pinging for comments. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, i was a little confused about his nationality. Thanks TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. See Nationality. The creation of a new nation state doesn't change someone's nationality if they died in the old one. Doug Weller  talk 13:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification and thanks  for the inputs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

He is known as national poet in Pakistan. But his lot of books referred india and he is British Indian. SonAbraham (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

He is known as national poet in Pakistan. But his lot of books referred india and he is British Indian. SonAbraham (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)