Talk:Marghoobur Rahman

Article name ?

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

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)

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

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)

Requested move 24 December 2024

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)

• 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)

For improvement

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