User talk:Goldsztajn/Archives/2020/April

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Goldsztajn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Goldsztajn

Thank you for creating 1983 Meghalaya Legislative Assembly election.

User:WikiAviator, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Expansion needed. More sources needed. Note that Election Commission and any governmental organisations are not RS.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|WikiAviator}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

WikiAviator (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator The Election Commission of India is a reliable source; if this was a disputed election or there was a history of electoral fraud it might make sense to question the sourcing or seek other sources, but that's not the case here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not a matter of credibility of the source. It is about whether this is a secondary source. As ECI is the one organising the election, it is is a primary source, which is not an eligible source due to NPOV precautions. Therefore, a secondary source is needed. WikiAviator (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator In elections (like legislative voting records, awards ceremonies etc) secondary sources are deriving data from a primary source; if this was a case of interpreting an election result, I would agree, but in this case (ie an historic election result), the primary source is more reliable than any secondary source. Also, the primary source is important because it provides official party names, which thus gives definitive information, especially when a party name is presented in contradictory ways in English secondary sources (PDIC being a good case in point here).--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: You've reminded me of the days I first edited (which is not long ago and you're ten years older than me!). Once upon a time, I was adding the official route map of American Airlines to an article. Someone said that I couldn't use it cuz it is a primary source. Then guess what, I replied the same way you did: all secondary sources are derived from the first one! Then he told me that it is not okay, because a secondary source is a barrier that verifies that the primary source is accurate and true, and in order to make sure that every article is in NPOV, this hard policy is implemented across the board. You may be gobsmacked just as I did and totally don't agree, but after a few months I noticed that it is beneficial to the credibility of the entire project. I hope you know what I mean. Happy editing! Cheers, WikiAviator (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator: FWIW - I would have happily defended you citing a company's route map for its destinations as a simple matter of common sense; with this type of data, just because somebody copies something and publishes it does not make it more reliable or less likely to incorporate error. There are other clear cases where a primary source *is* better (eg in determining notability of an academic via their membership in a scholarly society - see Point 3 in Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes). I'd also recommend being familiar with WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Goldsztajn I know what you mean. What you said is valid and you can keep the source. However, due to the "independent" requirement, it is still more ideal for a secondary source as a compliment to the primary one. You can still keep it. Its fine. I'll try to find a secondary source later if I have time. WikiAviator (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Goldsztajn. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hoài Đức

Could you explain why you unreviewed that article? It's a well-formed and functional disambiguation... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Elmidae: I unreviewed it because checking the links I saw it disambiguates to Vietnamese language articles – my understanding was that disambiguation pages should only link to English language pages; but I'm not certain if that's policy, so I'm leaving it for someone else...or if you can point me to a policy which indicates this is acceptable happy to look at it again. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I've seen previous disambigs by this editor, in which he linked to the district only - those links are in the second and third instances. So I kind of ignored the added interwiki links to the commune. You are right that those shouldn't be in there - my mistake; will remove them (we want only one link per entry, anyway). Thanks! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I found the Vietnamese disambiguation page so added in the language links... possibly red link the communes although I cannot find them elsewhere, so probably not.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, as it seemed that I was in the wrong here too. Thank you for letting me know about my mistake; I will be sure to be more careful with these interwiki links disambiguation pages. (It's not like they're the most common types of pages that come up, but it is important nonetheless. Usually disambiguation pages are created by experienced editors, and usually don't have many errors if they were created with the correct formatting.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi

Hi, @Goldsztajn:, I needed a little help, as I am not sure what should I do. Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi is more common name of the subject, rather than, Muhammad Zakariyya al-Kandhlawi, this Al is mostly taken from Arabic and per my knowledge we should not use this, until any worth need, I would request you to fix this. Regards. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I am also working on the submission about his son, recently deleted through AfD at my 4th sandbox. Requesting you to give it a view. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi AaqibAnjum, give me a few days to look at these and I'll come back to you. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @AaqibAnjum: regarding changing the title of Muhammad Zakariyya al-Kandhlawi. I assume the al- was added once he started living in Saudi? In order to change that we would need to have a reason for the change which can be explained with references to sources. The problem I can see is that if one searches for his work as it appears in English I found seven texts where his name as author is al-Kandhlawi and only two texts where his name as author is without the al-. So, on that basis we would need to leave the title as is. How is he named in his Urdu language texts? If you can show that in the preponderance of his texts as author he is called Kandhlawi (rather than al-Kandhlawi), then I could mark the page with a requested move template and invite comment. I'll look at your draft in the next 24 hours. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Goldsztajn, I see this al all due to effect of Arabic. Infact, some prefer using it. But per my studies about the Deobandi scholars; there is no use of al anywhere. See this article on Nawaye Waqt, Pk, and this is from monthly Faqeeh published by Pakistani known Deobandi scholar Muhammad Ilyas Ghuman, it too uses the term Kandhlawi in Urdu. Moving forward with this, here Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi uses Kandhlawi in Urdu. Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi writes a book about Mawlana Zakariya and he too uses Kandhlawi

Rekhta uses Kandhlawi as well, see
This website of Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama also uses Kandhlawi and this article from Jamia Binoria also uses Kandhlawi. Hope this suffices. Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Darul Uloom Deoband in its fatawa also uses the term Kandhlawi and this PhD thesis about Mawlana Zakariya from University of Karachi also uses the term Kandhlawi. Best. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum I think the issue that will take the highest relevance will be how he is credited as an author. A directory or catalogue will provide the best justifications; it's a lot harder to assess when there are sets of links. Someone may just respond with a six or seven Arabic works? I've just noticed this [1] which possibly suggests the most common usage is Muḥammad Zakariyyā. It's very complicated, as the right hand column shows an extraordinary variation in the names by which he is referred. What do you think of a move to just Muḥammad Zakariyyā? I don;t have a problem for the move, but it's important that there is a clear and precise justification. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, Give me sometime. I'll try getting some Catalogues. I myself being an Indian know the usage of Kandhlawi; as you see with Muhammad Ilyas Kandhlawi, Muhammad Yusuf Kandhlawi, Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi and others; like Inamul Hasan Kandhlawi — I would like to ask you for sometime. Regards -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Muhammad Talha Kandhlawi

Hi AaqibAnjum I've had a chance to look at the article in your sandbox. My assessment is that as it currently stands I don't think it crosses the threshold for notability. I see three major problems:

Sourcing – I did not check all the sources in the article, but many seem to be from religious institutions in some way connected to the subject of the article, so cannot be considered independent. The Millat Times is mostly acceptable, although it is possible to debate the source's independence from the subject; Nawa-i-waqt is a good source, but as far as I can see all that article is reporting is a claim that Muhammad Talha is still alive. The Google books link only shows Burhanuddin Sambhali's position, but does not indicate any relationship to the subject of the article (and from that source I cannot be certain Sambhali himself is notable).
Notability – Unfortunately, this is I think the most difficult part – what was he notable for? There is not anything in the article which I see which establishes his own notability – did he teach a new generation of identifiable scholars? Did he establish new centres of learning? Did he resolve significant disputes? Reading the sources it sounds as if he was a good person who served the movement he was part of with piety and sincerity, but that in itself does not establish notability.
Inheritance – Reading the article, I hope I am not being offensive here, the thing which stands out is that he had a famous father. One of the cardinal issues in wikipedia, especially with biographies, is that notability is not inherited.

I hope I do not appear too critical; I am just trying to give an honest assessment based on the WP:GNG. It might be possible to take some of the material and include it in the Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi article, but without much stronger sourcing and content covering notability I think it will always struggle to be a stand-alone article. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Goldsztajn for the assesment. As far I can see, he was the successor of his father in Tasawwuf, and thus has a number of disciples, one among them being Burhanuddin Sambhali, one of highly known teachers of Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow - as for the Tasawwuf part, I am working my best to find independent resources. He had best positions at 2nd top Islamic seminary of India i.e. Mazahir Uloom, Saharanpur — being its patron for years, and its general secretary. I am preparing University assignments and will look for some other offline references once I get free. I'm also trying to work on Burhanuddin Sambhali, it may help a bit. Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 07:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice work on GAN review of Cultural Racism

So helpful to have a social scientist around when we need one. Especially helpful that you were able to shed light on the early Ngram bump, and point to some of the earlier work that wasn't covered. LaTeeDa (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)