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 SL93 (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
... that the book Our Hindu Rashtra claims that India is a de facto Hindu Rashtra? Source: "Aakar Patel has always backed his claims with facts. Almost a year ago when he wrote that India was de facto a Hindu Rashtra, many were shocked; some even differed with him." Frontline
ALT1: ... that the book Our Hindu Rashtra claims that India is a de facto Hindu majoritarian state?
Not going to do a formal review here, because I've written on very closely related subjects; but I'm concerned about the accessibility of this article. At the moment, I don't think someone unfamiliar with current Indian politics will be able to understand it. "Rashtra", for instance, is not an English word. The "Content" section doesn't really summarize the book's contents. I could try to help out, but I haven't read it, and haven't the time. I'll try to take a look at the reviews later today. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I have added ALT1 to make this clearer. Venkat TL (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, that hook is clearer; but my main issue was with the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Vanamonde, another reviewer has commented. Can you give suggestions on how to fix and resolve these issues pointed below. Venkat TL (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Venkat TL: The article needs to be accessible to someone who isn't well-versed in Indian politics, and at the moment, I'm afraid it isn't. I haven't read the article, and the most substantive reviews are paywalled, so there's little I can do to help at the moment. If you would like assistance, I would need access to the frontline and EPW sources at least; would you be willing to send me full-text versions? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Venkat TL and Storye book: I've undertaken an almost complete overhaul, with the aim of improving accessibilty and separating the book's arguments from statements of fact. Venkat TL, I hope this gives you an example you can follow on other similar articles. I'm still unsure if it's accessible enough, but we're limited in that by the source material, which does assume a basic knowledge of Indian politics. My own concerns over accessibility are addressed. I always struggle to come up with useful hooks for articles this short, so I will leave that process to you both. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Vanamonde93. Much appreciated. I shall read it and revise the review. Storye book (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both. Vanamonde has greatly improved the article. They deserve the credit for the good work. This has also been a learning experience for me on how to write better articles on Books. Venkat TL (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Overall: Thank you for this article, which is fine in intent, but needs more work. You need to define "Hindu rashtra". From a quick google-search, it seems to me that it means a non-religious Hindu polity based on giving priority to the culture and the homeland of India due to the love of one's country, which would seem fine in itself. Using that to crush racial or religious minorities within the country would seem to be an additional and separate thing under that definition. But what do I know? I think the article needs to clarify that issue. I am also querying the citation for both ALTs, considering that the reader will not find a definition of either "Hindu rashtra" or "Hindu majoritarianism" in the article - you might be surprised to know how few people ever bother to look words up. To achieve better neutrality, the article also needs to expand more on the politically controversial aspect of the book.Storye book (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Venkat TL and Vanamonde93 for your improvements to the article. I believe that the article now gives a sufficiently clear view of the book and the political background. I am uncomfortable with the link to majoritarianism, because that article (which you did not write) is in a bad condition, is mostly uncited, and is misleading in places. I think that you would do better to unlink the word, and replace it with an explanation elsewhere in the article, taken from an authoritative citation or citations. However, for the moment, I must accept what we have got. Storye book (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Good to go, with ALT1. Storye book (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for this article, which is fine 
Good to go, with ALT1. Storye book (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)