Talk:Muhammad Iqbal

MOVE

I am reverting the move from Muhammad Iqbal to Allama Iqbal. Justice007 protests, there was no move discussion. If SheriffIsInTown wants a move, they can start a discussion here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Debate about which title is more common and even if the proposed title is the most common, there are also concerns that "Allama" is an honorific, something which Wikipedia generally tries to avoid in article titles. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Muhammad Iqbal → Allama Iqbal – Approve as nominator: The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. Careful analysis of references present in the article reveals that subject's common name is "Allama Iqbal". There are eleven mentions of "Allama Iqbal", ten mentions of just "Iqbal" and six mentions of "Muhammad Iqbal" thus as per WP:COMMONNAME, article title does not have to be the person's given name, it can be anything what most reliable sources use the title for the subject, thus please move the page to "Allama Iqbal", Iqbal's most commonly used name. Sheriff (report) 05:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Google search and Google books show the most familiar name in the academic world, is Muhammad Iqbal, Sir Muhammad Iqbal, and how other Wikipedia displays. Here are some links to demonstrate the birth name as the world news. What is the issue to rename the article while all the honorific names are mentioned in the lead section. In a general view, just "Iqbal" is more familiar than Allama Iqbal. I do not understand the motivation of the editor.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

Please check the Google Books too. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• As I remember discussion of the move request of the article Ghalib by RegentsPark

1

I will agree to the main space name "Iqbal", it is widely known in the Urdu world.Justice007 (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The motive is to identify the subject properly. Since as a kid i have been known to identify him as "Allama Iqbal" from text books to newspapers to anything what i read. Any outside links do not overrule Wikipedia's policy WP:COMMONNAME, which states that common name is what most reliable sources present in the article identify the subject with and according to that policy "Allama Iqbal" is Iqbal's most common name. Please support this move otherwise help me understand your motive to keep it as is. Sheriff (report) 12:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Iqbal is not an unknown figure that we introduce him; everyone knows his name including all the honorific names that are, with the bold letter, mentioned in the lead sections. In the Google search with any honorific name displays the Muhammad Iqbal automatically. As the most of academic sources in the English language holds the birth name alongside some sources honorific names too, first, Allama falls under WP:HONORIFIC, second, what we are going to gain with that? You are listening from your childhood Allama Iqbal, I am listening from my childhood Quid-e-Azam, but that does not work, we have to do that as the guidelines and rules state. I will agree if consensus endorses any name, changing the name means other projects of the Wikipedia will have to change that too. I hope other experienced editors, who contributed the article, will give their opinion.Justice007 (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Anybody who has a page on Wikipedia is notable and not an unknown figure but page moves still happen because their title does not fall under Wikipedia policies most specifically WP:COMMONNAME, we have to adhere to the policies as much as we can, it's not about us gaining or losing anything from this move, it's what our service to this encyclopedia requires from us. WP:COMMONNAME does not say that if lead mentions all the names and honorifics then we can keep the article title which is less common for that subject. Allama might fall under WP:HONORIFIC but WP:HONORIFIC does not override WP:COMMONNAME as it talks about exceptions and one exception is if the honorific is part of most commonly used name then you can have the honorific in the title, Example Alexander The Great. It's not about my personal choice, if Quaid-e-Azam is proven to be the most commonly used title in the sources on that page then i invite you to initiate the move and i will be the first one to support although i did not analyze references on that page yet. Sheriff (report) 16:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think, I have enough explained, it is my last comment regarding you, I look forwards others editors what they think. The policy clearly states; "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." For me is not any problem, nor the issue if we reach the consensus whatever the name is or decided, as the academic sources in English, endorse the Muhammad Iqbal or just Iqbal.Justice007 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "Allama" is a honorific title, not his name. It would be like having an article titled "Governor Pataki" instead of George Pataki, citing that newspapers mostly referred to him as such. Wiki policy is clear enough, COMMONNAME refers to the common name, not the common title. Kraxler (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I am sorry to say but if you think "Allama" is same in "Allama Iqbal" as "Governor" in "Governor Pataki", you totally and completely lack the knowledge and understanding about the subject being discussed here, good luck to Wikipedia. Sheriff (report) 17:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• We are here to follow the standard way, and we should keep in mind how to react if something is not falling in our expectations, we apply the rules, and civility is the one of the five pillars of the rules. We must hold care at all style of writings, and comments.Justice007 (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Leaning toward oppose: As noted above, Allama is an honorific title used to refer to a person as a scholar and religious leader. It should only be used on Wikipedia in very exceptional cases, and I see no clear indication that this article should be an exception. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Could you be kind enough and explain the criteria for an exception as well? Sheriff (report) 13:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Theresa seem to be exceptions. A summary explanation would probably be somewhat of an oversimplification, but the Gandhi article was the topic of six requested moves and lots of discussion (so far), and most people probably don't know who you're talking about if you refer to Mother Theresa by some other name. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• That is what I am try to explain that "Allama Iqbal" should be an exception same as Mahatma Gandhi because there have been many "Muhammad Iqbal" in the world but "Allama Iqbal" is only one. If you say Muhammad Iqbal, I wouldn't know which Muhammad Iqbal you are talking about because there lives a "Muhammad Iqbal" next door to me and one in the neighboring street and a few in the same locality but I have never heard about anyone who was known as "Allama Iqbal" except the subject of this article, this is unique only to him. Also, lead of this article accepts that he is widely known as "Allama Iqbal" and I think the article should be renamed to what he is widely known as, as per WP:COMMONNAME. Sheriff (report) 09:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• If the motivation for renaming the article is to disambiguate this person from other people with the same name, then we need some consideration of whether this person has "primary topic" status among those with the name "Muhammad Iqbal" that are discussed on Wikipedia, e.g., when considering the others listed at Muhammad Iqbal (disambiguation). If we decide that he is not the primary topic for "Muhammad Iqbal", then we can also consider other ways of disambiguating the title, such as Muhammad Iqbal (scholar), Muhammad Iqbal (philosopher), or Muhammad Iqbal (politician). The rationale originally given for this move was WP:COMMONNAME, which is a different issue. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bolding "Sir"

User:SheriffIsInTown can you explain why you are bolding Sir? In ictu oculi (talk)

I did give a reason in the summary line and will give it here as well. WP:HONORIFICS clearly states:

The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name.

Sheriff | report | 11:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be what WP:HONORIFICS says to do, so I will no longer quarrel with that (although I'm a bit surprised to see it). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Work of Muhammad Iqbal

Hardly can think of any rationale to keep an article on MI's "work" separate. kashmiri ^TALK 20:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not sure, what is your logic behind it but you might want to merge Works of Rabindranath Tagore into Rabindranath Tagore as well. Sheriff | report | 20:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unless the other article will be substantially expanded. Currently, that other article appears to just be a small collection of mostly-duplicate content (which is not the case with the Works of Rabindranath Tagore). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

How about giving me some time to expand it? Sheriff | report | 23:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That might be fine, but if it remains a separate article we should make sure this article doesn't contain a lot of redundant coverage of that topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the merge without even commenting on and without any prejudice (either way) on his British Raj political career, his works, namely in the poetry and philosophy categories, are a completely separate subject and even studied as such with doctorates on the topic. This article can certainly be expanded way beyond a stub regardless of its condition at this moment. On both counts, of content and independent notability, the topic deserves a separate article. Biography article is already well expanded and would go above the WP:MOS limit from biography alone, works can easily be expanded further with more notable works even getting their own sections in the child article. His works like Bang-e-Dara, Shikwa and Jawab e Shikwa, Tarana-e-Hindi among others have separate articles. The works article will smoothly accommodate them all as an intermediate article connecting the biography to works. On issues about possible duplicate content, the "Literary work" sections here are supposed to be a summary of the works article per WP:MOS. Some duplication is going to occur and infact the works article should even further expand on each detail if sources are available. What is and is not to be a part of the child article is a dispute for there and should not affect the merge consensus. The expansion of work specific content should go this way: over all summary in biography, topical summary in works article, full length expansion in each work's own article. To further support a separate article on Works of Iqbal, see Template:Muhammad Iqbal, Iqbal Review (a journal on his works), Iqbal Academy Pakistan (an institution on his works), Muhammad Iqbal bibliography of works about Iqbal (for some one who has a notable bibliography of works about him and related to him, an article listing and summarizing all of his own works in a single accessible article is expected from a good encyclopedia). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note: the article should be renamed to Works of Muhammad Iqbal (would need an administrative delete / move) as it is about plural; works. After the move, the article should be added as "main article" to the "Literary work" section here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the merge : As detailed comment of TopGunl, I agree with him.Justice007 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the merge Agree with TopGunl. Spasage (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note: I do not see any further comments; I hope someone is going to close that. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The false version

• I have gone through the page 76 of the cited source; it is the bluntly false version that does not even match the page of the book version. It does not establish the Wikipedia standard, nor the policies are accurately applied. KahnJohn27 has been asked by two editors, that the dispute should be discussed on the article talk page, but he did not value that, and even blamed me with the connection to another editor, on my talk page. He had already crossed the rule 3RR; I did not report against him because I prefer to understand the standard of the project rather reporting. I am going to rewrite the version, as the source states so that the reader should not be misled. I am here just for the improving the standard of the project even if I have to ignore the rules.Justice007 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Justice007: Please try reading the source. Here's a small quote from the Rajiv Gandhi's book "Eight Lives: A Study of the Hindu-Muslim Encounter" source page 76: And Edward Thompson, the British writer, claims that towards the end of his life Iqbal had to spoken to him of his "very serious reservations" about a separate Muslim state. And I didn't exceed the 3RR rule, 3 reverts in 24 hours, you have however. Also on your talk page, I said I will talk later on as I didn't ha e time then. Additionally your reason is not justifiable for breaking any rules. Despite of what reason you have it is wrong to get into edit-warring which you've been warned about another editor and you still seem bent on enforcing you views without giving a proper reason. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Additionally Brig. Kuldip Singh's "Indian Military Thought: Kurukshetra to Kargil and Future Perspectives" also says the same thing and I used it as a source which you also clearly ignored. You have cited improper and irrational reasons and despite being told to discuss first, you decided to do what you wanted. You don't seem to be here to improve the standard of project, but to do as what you want. As of now I have reverted your edits and reinstated the content as you have provide no good explanation as to why it should be removed, despite not wanting to revert your illegimate action has forced me to. All of the reasons given by you and User:SheriffIsInTown have been completely false a irrational. Please do not remove sourced content without an actual reason that is rational, it is completely wrong. If you continue to bluntly force your views and removed sourced content without discussion, then I shall report you. Enough is enough. Pleas stay within the rules. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)