Talk:Akhtar Raza Khan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because if you think that refrences from secondary sources must be attached.Please wait I am going to edit the article. I created the article with a very hard labour so dont hast in deleting it I am adding theore sources to it.

How the nominator think that this article includes blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes?No not at all.The person on whome the article is written is a very notable and most known contemporary Islamic figure for the muslims of South Asia.His name is placed on the 22nd position in the list of The 500 Most Influential Muslims across the world, compiled by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre.See the official website of the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre (see: [http://themuslim500.com/profile/mufti-muhammad-akhtar-raza-khan-qaadiri-al-azhari)

See the more secondary sources:

(http://timesofindia.com/city/bareilly/Clerics-oppose-the-appointment-of-son-as-new-Sajjadanasheen-of-Dargah-Ala-Hazrat/articleshow/45272544.cms )

(http://twocircles.net/2014oct16/1413482491.html#.VbTAHjMckjM)

I had added all thee sources in the article If more sources are required, I am providing more.

Ejaz92 (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Flat Out: The mainspace version of this article was taken to AFD by an account that ended up having a possible bias or agenda, and did the same to several other articles in the same topical area. The way it was done was to essentially reduce the article(s) down to a single paragraph and then nominate them for speedy deletion. This was caught, a discussion ensued and it was agreed that AFD would be used instead. Which does not seem to have garnered a lot of participation either. I am somewhat involved here (peripherally at least) and I am far from a subject matter expert, but I think the merits of this draft should be decided via an MfD discussion rather than a speedy deletion. Unless someone who is really familiar with these types of articles agrees this is a blatant hoax. I'm not sure if the reviewing admin will agree. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:, thanks. I have withdrawn the speedy deletion nomination on the basis of two secondary sources that seem to confirm the existence of the subject. I will leave it to another editor to review for notability. Flat Out (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Flat Out: and @FreeRangeFrog: thanks..... Ejaz92 (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources used in this article

Apart from the sources provided in the draft there are enough materials available on internet in languages other than english (e.g.,Urdu and Hindi (not provided in the article) which easily establishes the notability of the subject.Some of them are as follow:

A) http://tahaffuz.com/2917/#.VdCHAvmqqko

B) http://www.tanzeemulamaeislam.com/nizam-e-mustafa-international-conference-against-terrorism/

C) http://jang.com.pk/urdu/update_details.asp?nid=128169

D) http://urdu.geo.tv/UrduDetail.aspx?ID=128169

E) http://www.bhaskar.com/news/MAT-RAJ-OTH-c-189-145651-NOR.html

Ejaz92 (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have read the draft, and in view of secondary sources provided above, draft merits to have room in main space. Notability of scholar is acknowledged, though I am not a follower of school of this scholar. Nannadeem (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Acceptance at WP:AFC

This draft has been checked against the WP:AFD deleted version and found to be significantly different. It is here on its own merits, and has been the subject of a protracted set of AfC discussions. Fiddle Faddle 22:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Titles?

Three phrases stand out to me, they appear to be titles. Could someone with more knowledge in the matter confirm this?

• Alaihir Rahmah
• Hadrat Allama
• Hadrat Mawlana

Could you please also provide explanations of these titles?

Thanks! ---- 91.10.48.227 (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

About Akhtar Raza khan Barelwi

This is not real account please block Hamid Raza1. There is no any authentic reference, Maximum information is fake.

Syed Anzar Hashmi (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Please ask authentic reference

Syed Anzar Hashmi (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

people attended funeral

more than 1 crore people attend namaz e janaza

KhanQadriRazviBareilvi 18:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2019

SHEIKH ABOOBAKER AHMED (KANTHAPURAM) HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS GRAND MUFTI OF INDIA 2.50.50.168 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Þjarkur (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• People in funeral of Akhtar raza Qadri.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of Google drive as a source

I doubt whether a file "published" on Google drive counts as a reliable source. I have tagged it, and made it clear what the link is to.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is if the underlying .. possibly ... offline book/document is reliable. If it the url-link is actually a "nice to have". Unfortunately embellishment of the underlying citation is not the worst but still somewhat inadequate for that purpose. oclc= or isbn= parameters would be nice but they are not likely to be exist.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Main image

The use of Taajusharia.png image to replace the fair use portrait image AkhtarRazaKhan(Image).jpg needs discussion. The replacement at [1] was done under WP:MINOR and without edit summary which makes that as problematic and has caused me to revert the edit. At a glance I am also concerned there may be a licensing issue with Taajusharia.png (Need to look at that on commons and it would have been no absolutely no issue if it was an author-taken photograph). In all events Wikipedia:NFCI seems be relevant here. While their may be technical issues with the image replacement the BOLD replacement concept was ultimately in my view good faith though the implmentation of the replacement was in my view problematic.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Please note I have chosen to nominate Taajusharia.png on commons for deltion due to possible lack of provenance with regards to licensing attribution and therefore a possible license violation. I am perfectly happy if that challenge to what in my view is an excellent and informative image can be successfully refuted or an alternatively if an alternative licensing compliant image can be provided. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk)

Current main image

There is a discussion taking place about this image at Wikipedia:Files for discussion since it has been objected to (by removal) yet again by an editor. Please be aware that arguments must be policy based. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent and others: please let me know if there is a better image in the video I linked there. I can't verify for sure all those images are the same person. (though it looks like it, but I don't understand the language) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz I have not searched for an image of Khan, nor have I watched the video. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I am reasonably but not totally sure many of the images in the video, which appears to me to be a form of life story, are of Akhtar Raza Khan, but because I am unfamiliar with the language I cannot be sure. Disclosure : please also be aware I am colour defective which can sometimes (but not often) affect my choices on image selection. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove the use of "was"

Huzoor Taajushshari'ah Rehmatullahi Taa'la Alaihi is a "Wali". Wali is an arabic word used for a saint person Or a holy person who is chosen by Allah Taa'la. Here, I strongly suggest that please remove "was" And change the sentences into present tense. I will also explain why, We Muslims love every Wali with our whole heart. I am insisting to change the sentence in present tense because a Wali DOES NOT die, they just leave this world and reach the paradise. Here using of "was" Indicates otherwise (MaazAllah), it hurts our religious feelings quite deeply. I am pretty sure wikipedia is not made to hurt religious feelings. 256Moin256 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@256Moin256: While try to neutrally respect any (almost) any form of religious belief, non-belief, humanism, atheism, agnosticism etc. etc. it is necessary to stick to common language usage and not WP:FRINGE usage. At present you edging on using WikiPedia as a forum, WP:NOTAFORUM and going toward WP:NOTHERE and likely to edge towards disruption. I so however think that the explanation of religious practices backed by WP:RS sources are welcome. Ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you need further advice if necesary. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

CiteKill

@TimTrent: I may be missing something but I find your tagging of Akhtar Raza Khan for {{Cleanup}} for WP:CITEKILL at [2] somewhat different to the approach taken at WP:BitChute where the use of the groups "far-right-group" and "hateful-material" to achieve a 2*six line cite seems somewhat similar. Oversighter @GorillaWarfare pinged for comment. At a simple glance neither should be so tagged for CITEKILL or both should be tagged for CITEKILL. I am also concerned about the second person use in the comment associated with the cleanup tag as it seems to accuse the reader. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the reason field here for reference, and just linked to this section:

" Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre.[14][8][15][16][17]" and "millions of people.[9][18][19][20][21]" are prime examples of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.

Cleanup tags should not distract from the article.

As for the actual concern, for controversial or likely-to-be-challenged statements, it's quite appropriate to have multiple citations. They can be bundled if need be for readability. If these are controversial, I would say just bundle the cites. If not, then using the best cite out of the group makes sense. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2021

Mufassir E Azam Hazrat Mufti Muhammad Ibrahim Raza Khan Qadri Razvi (Jilani Miya) Father Name With Link KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.   melecie   t 02:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

improvements

@Woodroar: Thanks for removing the questionable source, I think you have well explained the inaccuracies of unreliable source, Mirror. So I am going ahead to remove the fansite in the external link section per W.P Elno, also the image which is directly copied from Muslim mirror, along with other copyediting including removal of Citation bombarding, Thanks. 2401:4900:52FD:1B4F:CC07:E97B:E788:66DB (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

File:AkhtarRazaKhan(Image).jpg is tagged as fair use, so we should be able to use it no matter where we got it. It's also being used by RASA News, for example. Woodroar (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Woodroar: , again not sure about Rasa news the article which you had linked probably a Wikipedia mirror or definitely a spun/translated content from various revisions of different articles of Wikipedia, such as Barelvi, Ahmed Raza Khan, Akhtar Raza Khan, etc ,. Unfortunately we can't accept it from questionable source, untill someone have COI with Muslimmirror.com, because the old man depicting in the Muslimmirror.com may not be Akhtar Raza Khan , rather we should search for image from an authentic source.2401:4900:52FD:1B4F:CC07:E97B:E788:66DB (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The image was kept at FFD. If you object to that, start a new FFD. We aren't removing the image unless it's deleted. FDW777 (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Exactly this. I've restored the image. Woodroar (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If anyone cares to read it, the FFD discussion is at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 8#File:AkhtarRazaKhan(Image).jpg. The image in question was published on Flickr in 2013, although it has since been deleted there. It also appeared in this Youtube video uploaded 2 days before the Muslim Mirror article was published. So any concerns about MM's reliability or whether they faked or doctored the photo are irrelevant. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said at ANI, If there is any issue with this particular image then I suggest you make a suggestion as to one that can replace it, since we are able to use any image regardless of copyright. I doubt that will actually happen though, since this is about censorship. FDW777 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

50 days later and no suggestion as to an alternate image. Unsurprising.... FDW777 (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Tajushariya Alaihir Rahmah' Photo

Meatpuppetry will not be entertained
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am here to suggest to remove the [Tajushariya's Photo] to those who edit this page frequently. I am not here put my personal view nor will I convert it into an argumental talk. Why I am saying this because He (Tajushariya) himself always disliked photography in his whole life. He always considered photography as a major sin. Now, one must wonder then why he has a photo, My best assumption is this photo was taken for his passport creation which is, of course, mandatory to visit a different country. I am requesting the editors to remove this photo and add this Tajushariya's crown instead. There is not going to be any copyright issue ever in future I'm sure, and if you think there will be copyright issues then please let me know. I am expecting the honest answer from the wikipedia. 256Moin256 (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC) @256Moin256: The honest answer from me here, given the amount of times this has been raised, the rehash here either is intended to be disruptive or is showing a lack of competency; though the latter may not be helped with English possibly not being your primary language or the your dialect being subly different. PEr the talk page WP:TEAHOUSE is the place to ask these questions of a fair-use image. But note I am not "Wikipedia". If you still you want a file discussed then see Wikipedia:Files for discussion , but an incompetent raising of the matter might well be seen as disruptive and have implications. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC) The suggested photo is a crown, not Akhtar Raza Khan. Absolutely no. FDW777 (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC) @Djm-leighpark: My previous request was totally different then now. I would request you to not relate that one with this one. Yes, English is not my native but it has nothing to do with me having lack of competency. I did hear him saying that taking photos or creating/drawing arts of any living thing is a major sin. I, happily, would put it here as reference for you but it was in Urdu language and there's no subtitle for english speakers to understand, still I can look for it in case you want proofs. Look, I am not here to create any kind of disruption but as being one of his followers, it is my job to always protect his integrity. He would never ever approve that his photo is on his wikipedia page. Thank You. 256Moin256 (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC) @FDW777 This crown is known as The Crown Of Tajushariya, for more reference take a look at this The holy grave of Tajushariya and this The holy grave of Tajushariya. These photos are of the holy grave of Huzoor Tajushariya Alaihar Rahmah in the holy place dargah e Tajushariya located in the holy city Bareilly Shareef. Here in these photos, just above the holy grave of him you can clearly see his blessed Crown. Thank You. 256Moin256 (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC) See WP:COI. I remain 100% opposed to removing the image, or replacing it with an imahge of a crown. FDW777 (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC) @256Moin256: I have no objection per se to the addition of the image of a crown to body the article provided supported by independent WP:RS/WP:V sources that this is reasonable, not undue, and without copyright issues. It may also need to be per consensus, and it must not disrupt the rendering of the article nor used to replace a portrait of Akhtar Raza Khan. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Hello Djm-leighpark and FDW777. I am also agreeing with 256Moin256. Remove the portrait of Huzoor Tajushariya Alaihir Rahmah and put the image of the Crown of Huzoor Tajushariya. He, in his whole life, always disliked photography and he would never agree with you people placing his photo on the most famous website aka Wikipedia. S.S8685 (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Hello Djm-leighpark and FDW777. I am also agreeing with 256Moin256. Remove the portrait of Huzoor Tajushariya Alaihir Rahmah and put the image of the Crown of Huzoor Tajushariya. He, in his whole life, always disliked photography and he would never agree with you people placing his photo on the most famous website aka Wikipedia. Sayyed Zahid Kamal Qadri Ismaily (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC) You can agree till you're blue in the face, per WP:CONLOCAL you cannot overrule WP:NOTCENSORED. FDW777 (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Hello Djm-leighpark and FDW777. I am also agreeing with 256Moin256. Remove the portrait of Huzoor Tajushariya Alaihir Rahmah and put the image of the Crown of Huzoor Tajushariya. He, in his whole life, always disliked photography and he would never agree with you people placing his photo on the most famous website aka Wikipedia. MUHAMMAD ALFAZ RAZA AZHARI (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Hello Djm-leighpark and FDW777. I am also agreeing with 256Moin256. Remove the portrait of Huzoor Tajushariya Alaihir Rahmah and put the image of the Crown of Huzoor Tajushariya. He, in his whole life, always disliked photography and he would never agree with you people placing his photo on the most famous website aka Wikipedia. Mohammed saqeeb suhail (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The Photo

Self-admitted block evading single purpose account. We aren't removing the photo
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hii, I am here again. Now I will neither let it be meatpuppetery nor sockpuppetry or whatever you guys name it. I am here to tell you that I had enough of it now. You guys couldn't bear it so my IP address was blocked. Now I will not spam nor will I talk blatantly so you will have no right to block my IP address. The only purpose I am here for is that photo you put on this page. That should be and must be removed. I know from which website you took the photo and I also know that no permission was taken to use that photo. If you really want to use then first take the permission from the Son of Akhtar Raza Khan, his son is Asjad Raza Khan. If he approves then go ahead and use the image and until you don't go and ask for his permission remove this photo because you are using it without permission according to this WP:F11. The website from which this photo was taken is going to be banned by cybercrime very soon because of the illegal use of the photo. I hope I was very clear. Any query related to this can be asked. Thanks Wait333 (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC) @Wait333, as already mentioned above, the Muslim Mirror angle is irrelevant. The image had already been published on YouTube two days before the Muslim Mirror article, and on Flickr five years before that. Permission is also irrelevant, as the image falls within our criteria for using copyrighted and other non-free content. If you're sincere in asking that we remove this specific photo, then please find us a better one. Woodroar (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC) @Woodroar The link of Flickr is not opening and showing error 404 page and about This YouTube Video I have already mailed them to remove the photo from the thumbnail as they used it without anyone's permission. If they are not going to remove then the mass reports will take place on the channel to ban their channel. Look Man, Akhtar Raza Khan in his whole hated the photography and you've uploaded where the whole world can see. Just have little sympathy at least. You will see that all of his photos are taken without his acknowledgment and this photo must have been taken for the sake of legal work related to a passport or something. I humbly request you to remove this photo and put the photo of the crown of Akhtar Raza Khan. This page is hurting the feelings of not only me but also of hundreds of people but most of them lack the knowledge to communicate here to make it removed as English is not our native language and lack of education has always been the thing around here. You already know and it is written here too that millions of people came to his Funeral so you can imagine the number of his followers and all of them would accept the fact that he, Akhtar Raza Khan, always hated photography. Thanks Wait333 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC) The photo was deleted from Flickr, which I'd already mentioned above. That doesn't matter. It also won't matter if the YouTube video is deleted. Whether a source is online or offline or difficult to access doesn't matter, per policy. The image fits our non-free content criteria, which is like a more restrictive form of fair use, so we're able to use it. I truly am sorry that so many people hated the photo, but look, we're an encyclopedia. Including a photo of the subject is exactly what everyone should expect when they visit this article. Woodroar (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Dear @Woodroar, Okay I have just one question, is there any policy that states that if an article is hurting the feelings of hundreds of people then we can make a request to get the whole removed from the Wikipedia? I, really, hope there is some policy like that exists. I am not a Wikipedia fan so I am not much aware of its policies. Thanks Wait333 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC) No, the exact opposite. IF you're offended, don't come to the website as we are not censored. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Not really, no. In fact, you might say we have an opposite policy: Wikipedia is not censored. We do sometimes remove poor-quality images on articles about living persons (which doesn't apply here) or content that violates the laws of the United States (which also doesn't apply). But in general, it's expected that if you look up a subject, you're going to find content (including images) about that subject. That includes, for example, images of Muhammad that some Muslims might find offensive, images of spiders that might trigger people with arachnophobia, etc. Woodroar (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC) @Woodroar This is exactly what I was trying to say that you mentioned. Photo of our beloved Prophet Muhammad can hurt our feelings and we find it very offensive because in the whole world, no photo of him exists. In the same way, we, Muslims, are finding this photo offensive so can you please do me a favor and guide what steps should I take for it now. And I accept the fact that Wikipedia is not censored but thousands of people would find it offensive so why keep a page that gives less knowledge and hurts the feelings of thousands more. Thanks Wait333 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC) I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but there are no steps to remove this photo. Akhtar Raza Khan is not a living person and the image does not violate the laws of the United States. We do not consider the feelings of relatives or followers on this matter. We've had multiple discussions about depictions of Muhammad and we include those images because they're educational and encyclopedic images. That's Wikipedia's policy and it applies to images about Khan or any other subject. Woodroar (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove The Photo

Sockpuppet blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please sir remove the photo of Huzoor Tajushariya. He does not like photography, please sir remove them. my humble request NotFair652 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Hello (again?): The concensus of previous discussions prevail and removal is refused on that basis. Please read the talk page, its archive, and associated pages. Please consider asking at the WP:TEAHOUSE for advice, if you are prepared to listen to it. Thankyou. 06:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) I already raised the question and I am told to discuss it here. Please sir remove it as it is hurting the feelings of thousands of people. I know Wikipedia doesn't have such a policy and I wonder why they have policies for every small stuff and no policy if the feelings of a community are hurt. I would really appreciate it if you remove it. Thank you NotFair652 (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022

Hi Sir, Could you please remove the photo because it is not appropriate. He never liked photography and this is hurting us. I would really appreciate it if you remove it. Please change this photo to the photo of his crown. Thanks Grey913 (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

How can you say it as fair use while it is totally inappropriate and hurting feelings of millions? Grey913 (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please Remove the photo

Hello Djm-leighpark and FDW777. Please Remove the photo. Hablufaro (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Change of line "He had tens of millions of followers in India.[9]"

Please change "He had tens of millions of followers in India." To "He has tens of millions of followers worldwide." 202.3.77.169 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. The source says Azhari had crores of followers across the country. From the context, it's clear that "the country" means "India". Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)