Template:Did you know nominations/Oudh Bequest

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Oudh Bequest[edit]

(
)

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 05:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC).

  • Oudh wasn't so much a "Shi'i kingdom" as an Indian princely state with a Shia ruling dynasty. The money was actually transferred from the government of British India, was it not? Why spell Shia two ways? The English in the article needs attention too.
Sorry for striking your inaccurate hook. I should say that at the time, there was a de facto Shi'a kingdom in the Oudh. I don't say this, sources say this. (See [1], [2], Shi'i state of Awadh, and etc). Btw, Shi'a kingdom of Oudh also shows the time when Shia were ruling Oudh. --Mhhossein talk 16:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
See our article on Oudh. 1816-1856 is complicated, but there is no doubt what the situation was after 1856, when the British took over & deposed the Nawab (again). So the first hook won't do; at the best there was a kingdom for only 6 years of "1850-1903". Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
You're right regarding the fact that Shi'a were ruling Oudh after 1853. Thanks for the point. I stroke the original hook, and yours is also not accurate for the similar reason. We need to show that the starting point was somewhere in the Shi'a kingdom, that's more accurate for those who are seeking the origination of the funds. What's your suggestion? This source might help. --Mhhossein talk 10:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Did you notice my comment? Mhhossein talk 06:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I suppose. Note, I am just commenting, not reviewing, & now I've lost interest. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Anyway. --Mhhossein talk 16:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Mhhossein, since both hooks have been struck, you'll need to create a new hook so there's something to be reviewed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding, I meant to do so. Mhhossein talk 11:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset:: Although I stroke it, I found that the original hook is in exact accordance with the second source, which is a reliable one. However, Oudh was not a Shi' kingdom for the whole period. Only 1850-1856! Do you have any suggestions? --Mhhossein talk 19:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A new hook needs to be advanced for this to move forward. North America1000 20:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The following new hooks are suggested:
ALT2: "... that, under the 1850–1903 Oudh Bequest, six million rupees were transferred from the Indian kingdom of Oudh to the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Karbala?"
ALT3: "... that it's claimed that the British aimed to use the Oudh Bequest as a political "lever" against Shia in Iran but the plan led to failure?" Mhhossein talk 19:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • New review needed for new alts 2 and 3 above. North America1000 09:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • On it, starting with the already mentioned correction to the non-English "Shii". (It's Shia or Shiite.) Grammar fix. Fixing phrasing and link.

      Note: Mr/s Hossein, fwiw, you should really remove all the other links from your hooks, since they're just going to reduce the number of people clicking into the article you're trying to promote. — LlywelynII 13:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • New enough when moved to mainspace; long enough (~4.3k elig. chars.); the WP:LEADCITEs should be moved into the body of the article, but everything's well-enough cited; Earwig finds minor copying but most of the recycled phrasing is quoted and cited; hooks are terse enough; cite for both is behind a paywall but appears legit and taken in good faith; ALT3 struck as "some scholars" opinion: seems likely but British manipulation is an aspect of that area's history that's prone to hyperbolic paranoia and would need hard proof to deserve any focus as a hook. ALT2 is G2G, assuming Mr/s Hossein doesn't want to remove the links and everyone is fine with this counting as a QPQ review. (Seems a bit minimal to me but, if the promoting admin is fine with it, I'm mostly happy we're getting such interesting articles.) — LlywelynII 13:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Oudh_Bequest&oldid=953611672"