Talk:Marghoobur Rahman

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marghoobur Rahman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article name ?

@TheAafi: Maulana Marghubur Rahman or Marghubur Rahman Bijnori ?? Owais Al Qarni (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Owais Al Qarni, I did made a search online. I couldn't get any reliable source adding the Bijnori suffix. If there are any sources inline with COMMON NAME policy, I would consider making a move. Thanks. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi: Is it reliable source? Owais Al Qarni (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Owais Al Qarni, No. I wouldn't consider it to be reliable at least per the WP:RS criteria. It is a self published article on a social network site. That's it. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 21:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 December 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Marghoobur Rahman be renamed and moved to Maulana Marghoobur Rahman.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Marghoobur Rahman → Maulana Marghoobur Rahman – Based on the available English sources, such as Milli Gazette, TwoCircles.net, Hindustan Times, and Radiance Weekly, the name "Maulana Marghoobur Rahman" is predominantly used, aligning with Wikipedia's COMMON NAME policy, which prioritizes the most widely recognized name in reliable sources. Additionally, a search on Google Books confirms that "Maulana Marghoobur Rahman" is extensively used across various books, further reinforcing its suitability for the English title. While the suffix "Bijnori" holds cultural significance in Urdu and is often used to denote his regional identity, it is not commonly found in English sources. Therefore, "Maulana Marghoobur Rahman" is the logical choice for the English Wikipedia title, with "Bijnori" appropriately mentioned within the article to provide context about his origins. If the article were in Urdu, "Marghoobur Rahman Bijnori" would be a more fitting choice. Khaatir (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I understand that WP:CommonName is a complex policy, but it emphasizes the application of common sense. The primary issue here is that the subject is no longer widely referenced in English-language sources. While some coverage emerged following his death, there are no substantial secondary scholarly sources available. The subject is only briefly mentioned in a few books, mainly because of his position as the head of a religious institution. As such, claims like "extensively used" or "predominantly used" are not accurate. The term "Maulana" is an honorific title, comparable to "Bishop" in Christianity. Its inclusion in Wikipedia article titles conflicts with WP:NPOV, as it introduces a bias by aligning with a specific religious perspective. Furthermore, "Maulana" is also a professional title, similar to "Professor" or "Doctor." While media outlets often use such titles when covering individuals, this is standard journalistic practice, not an indicator of a common name. If we were to adopt this practice for WP:CommonName, we would need to apply professional titles to all article names, such as "Professor ABC," "Doctor ABC," or "Maulana ABC." However, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles do not include professional or honorific titles in their names. For instance, a simple search for Arshad Madani yields thousands of results where his name is written as "Maulana Arshad Madani." This raises the question: should we use "Arshad Madani" or "Maulana Arshad Madani"? Similarly, the use of "Maulana" for Islamic scholars from the Indian subcontinent, or "Sheikh" for Arab scholars, reflects a common practice but not necessarily a common name. Titles like "Maulana" are widely used honorifics and not integral to the individual's name. I would only support the inclusion of such titles in rare cases, such as "Maulana Azad." Despite lacking formal religious education, he is universally recognized as "Maulana Azad," and millions of sources refer to him using this name. That is a valid example of a common name, unlike "Maulana Marghoobur Rahman," where the honorific does not meet the same criteria.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 04:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Owais seems to have made the argument here. The cases are different. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 17:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For improvement

@IbnShahab: Please, read this Article Owais Al Qarni (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]