Talk:Iqbal Azeem

Requested move 06 March 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by Ohnoitsjamie. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Professor Iqbal Azeem → Iqbal Azeem – Google searches show his name without 'Professor' to be more common' Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Tools

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

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Of course. COMMONNAME doesn't apply here given that there are no reliable sources in the first place for anything. There's a couple books with in Google Books, and a couple without, and it is impossible to determine whether the withs are indicative of the claim that he's known as Professor etc. On the whole, I don't even see enough sources in English to write a basic biography. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As per WP:COMMONNAME, the page should remain as Professor Iqbal Azeem as to most people he is known as Professor Iqbal Azeem.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as a noncontroversial move. Per Drmies, there are no reliable sources to begin with, and we're being asked to accept someone's word, against policy, that an exception be made here. Most people call Bill Belichick 'Coach', but we don't do honorifics. JNW (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support since we don't usually use honorifics in this way. NB: I've just removed the only source, which was a Wordpress-hosted blog - see WP:RS. Frankly, I suspect this entire article should be deleted unless sources turn up soon: extraordinary claims such as lyricist par excellence really are WP:PUFFERY. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to Iqbal Azim - and speedy close per WP:HONORIFIC - I've interlinked the Urdu article (which doesn't use "professor"), and added an English source. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Sitush and IIO -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support, obviously. Somehow I deleted my rationale when making the move request. Basically I did searched on Google and Google books with and without the 'Professor', and after subtracting the numbers I got when I used 'Professor' from those searching just on his name, it was obvious that the hits were much more numerous for just his name. Searches were [1], [2], [3]and [4]. (I use Clipmate to story stuff I copy, so I still have them). Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Note How long do I have to add sources which prove his common name. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, that's an interesting question. The article has only one source, this here blog--which, ironically, opens "Iqbal Azeem (????? ????) was born in Meerath (India) in 1913." Note that that Wordpress thing is the only ref in the entire article. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, i have a few in sight but people here are keeping me busy so I couldn't add them :) Sajjad Altaf (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I removed the Wordpress-based self-published source, as noted in my !vote above. I've no idea who the blog item's author really is but "hassan" was the name given. I'm not bothering to check the underlying whois data to see to which host the domain name is being forwarded - not worth the effort since it is so obviously an unreliable source. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is a mention of an Iqbal Azeem here in a Pakistan Press Foundation story. It seems to refer to him without "Professor" and, unfortunately, gives a somewhat ambiguous statement about a couplet being known to all readers of Urdu literature. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please note source added on the page mentions him as Professor Iqbal Azeem, if Sitush wants the source he is referring to, to be considered, he should add it to the page, moreover WP:COMMONNAME should have a preference over the voting here and WP:COMMONNAME only takes account of sources on the page. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the source that is of use for the article itself unless we can untangle the ambiguity of who is the writer of the couplet known to all readers etc. Even then, it might be considered journalistic hyperbole. My raising of the source was merely in connection with naming issues. We don't list every source that does/does not use the honorific in the article - that sort of thing is discussed here and a consensus is formed. - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• If the man was a professor we shouldn't be surprised to find him being referred to as that. No mention of "Prof. Azeem" or whatever is going to provide proof that "prof" was his usual honorific. We're not talking about Professor Longhair here. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There may be an additional fly in the renaming ointment. I seem to be coming across a lot of snippet view stuff on Google Books that probably relates to the subject of this article. However, they're spelling his name as "Azim" and often adding "Syed"/"Sayyed"/"Saiyid" & other variants thereof in front of the "Iqbal". One example is here, which says

SAIYID IQBAL AZIM. M.A., E.P.E.S. (Retired). Formerly Professor and Head of the Department of Urdu, Dacca College and Chittagong College; author of Mashriqi Bangal Men Urdu and Diwan-e-Natiq, etc

In fact, here in the UK, I seem to be getting more likely hits for "Azim" than for "Azeem", with the usual provisos that snippet views aren't really much use. I think that particular link is ok for adding an alternate spelling because it is an encapsulated thing - a brief directory entry - but the wider issue of whether to title as Azeem or Azim is more tricky. Obviously, we can set up some redirects for alternate spellings. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added that ref, in the latest 1975 version and put Sayid in non-bold in front of name in lead per WP:FULLNAME. We really could do with a confirmation of the date of death, and the ur.wp article gives "1931" as birth (!), someone should fix it. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad Rizvi, isn't Sayyid an honorific? I know it's in a number of articles such as Muhammad Rizvi who is referred to in the lead as Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi (and thereafter just as Sayyid for some reason). Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is an honorific but also sometimes a part of someone's name (Sayyid (name)). But I am not sure what is the case here. -- SMS ^Talk 12:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller, answer to your searches result comment, offcourse you will find more results for Iqbal Azeem than Professor Iqbal Azeem because there are other Iqbal Azeem's turning in your results for example i see one "Iqbal Azeem Chowdhry" and then there is "Muhammad Iqbal Azeem". Sajjad Altaf (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Nationality

We have no idea what Azim's nationality may have been. He was allegedly born in British India, he spent time in Bengal, a region that for a while was called East Pakistan but was India when he moved there, and he moved to Karachi in 1970.

Inevitably, yearbook sources during the East Pakistan period will refer to him in relation to Pakistan but that's just because of the then focus of the region. The Bangladesh yearbook doesn't seem to say that from the quote provided. Rather than push a nationalist POV, it is simpler to ignore the ambiguity. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Evaluate the source in the page, it will tell you about his nationality. Why do you have to reject every edit i make. Don't make it personal man, Wikipedia is not about personal fights. I am not promoting nationalist agenda rather you are doing that. Check the copy before the move request happened yesterday, you will find mention of India ten times in it, that was my copy, here is the source which says he is poet from Pakistan also he moved to Karachi in 1970 and lived there until his death that makes him Pakistani because when people change there nationalities, they are not referred with their abandoned nationality:

Source which mentions him a poet from Pakistan: "East Pakistan Year Book - Volume 3 1960 - Page 290 "IQBAL AZIM Professor Iqbal Azim is successful both as a poet and a prose writer. He holds a very prominent position in the literary field of Pakistan. In poetry he deals with romantic aspect of life but gives it a new colour. His prose writings consist mainly of literary criticisms. Prof. Azim has made a valuable contribution to Urdu by writing the books "Mashriqi Bengal Men Urdu" ( Urdu in East Pakistan ). In this book he has given a detailed background of all the" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjad Altaf (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That quote does not confirm his nationality - Pakistani literature is not necessarily Pakistani people. Similarly, living somewhere is not necessarily an identifier of nationality. And, as I've said above, there are obvious difficulties regarding assigning a nationality to this guy precisely because of the various places in which he lived. In any event, his nationality is not of any great importance in terms of his notability. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you on this, "He holds a very prominent position in the literary field of Pakistan." if he holds a prominent position in the literary field of Pakistan then he is Pakistani, it is common sense but since you own Wikipedia not just one article and you are free to threaten any body, warn anybody, block anybody, use foul language and insult anybody and nobody stands up to you, you can revert any number of edits but if someone else reverts, its an Edit War, your opinion holds. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but no, "He holds a very prominent position in the literary field of Pakistan" does not mean he is Pakistani. It means he's important in the literary field of Pakistan. Christopher Hitchens was an important figure in US journalism and writing long before he became a US citizen, and Malcolm Lowry, who as far as I know never gave up his British citizenship, is counted as an important writer in the literary field of Canada. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• It does not mean Bengal region either because there is no source to prove it if we purely go by the sources. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Right. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ja, das gilt für sie auch so, warum nicht sie still werden. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ich habe nicht gewusst, dass sie Menschen verstehen Deutsch, ich hätte versucht, das frühere. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's try again and make it simple.

• According to our article, Azim moved to Bengal in 1950. East Pakistan was not formed until 1955, thus it was impossible for him to have moved there in 1950.
• Mashraqi Bangal men Urdu was published on or before 1954 in Dhaka (see p. 62), just before the creation of EP. It even has the Bengal name in the title but for some patriotic reason that title seems to have been translated as Urdu in East Pakistan in sources of the East Pakistan era but then reverts to Urdu in East Bengal in, for example, 2003 (see p. 182). Then we get, for example, page 133 of Obaidi: a Persian poet of nineteenth-century Bengal (2005). This says "But even then Obaidi seems to have been neglected by our scholars, who have worked on the Urdu literature of Bengal, and the only exception in this regard is perhaps Iqbal Azim who, in his Urdu book on the subject, has given a short notice of the poet ..."

Now, I wouldn't use any of the above links as sources in the article without having a full view of them but there are various hints in there that he was writing of Bengali Urdu literature generally and not that of East Pakistan specifically. Notably, because that magnum opus ("still a pioneering work on the subject" p. 456) came out before EP even existed. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's try once again and make it even more simpler.

• Professor Iqbal Azeem moved to Bengal province which was part of Pakistan in 1950, he stayed there until that province became a separate country Bangladesh in 1970's and then he moved to Karachi which was also part of Pakistan in 1970's and he stayed there until his death so starting from 1950 until his death, he called Pakistan his home so whether in Bengal or East Pakistan or Karachi, common location is Pakistan so Bengal region should be replaced with Pakistan and he should be called an Urdu poet of Pakistan. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing nationality in this bit - just picking up on your dislike of "Bengal region" in the lead section, where you seem to want to have "East Pakistan" reinstated. However, to return to the nationality issue, he was born in British India in July 1913. Pakistan didn't exist then and his birthplace is now in Uttar Pradesh, a state of the Republic of India. Whether he took Pakistani nationality or Indian nationality is an unknown and likely to remain so - this is a common problem with people who straddled the Partition era and generally it can best be addressed by ignoring it entirely. - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That is an insane argument to make, in that case we would be doubting nationality of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Mian Nawaz Sharif and Manmohan Singh since they were all born pre-partition. The fact that he moved to Pakistan after three years of Pakistan's birth and lived there until his death makes him Pakistani but you are somewhat allergic to word Pakistan and it is hard to argue with someone who is designed to delete every mention of Pakistan. Using your crap argument at Talk: Dulla Bhatti and User Talk: Smsarmad against you. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm allergic to bad writing, bad sourcing and assumptions, that's all. I didn't say that all Partition straddlers fall into the "ignore it" category. Some have explicitly made their nationality known, for example, and others do so implicitly. Can a non-Indian national be President of India? - Sitush (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying recent reverts

The source entered here is clearly self-published and not at all reliable. - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's published by Professor himself so it cannot be called self published, it's a biography of Professor written by Anwar Ansari and there are multiple pages, this is just the introduction page, now if the website name says "iqbalazeem" in it, it still does not mean that it is self-published because a website can be hosted by any body by any name so if the author of biography hosted the website by "iqbalazeem.com" or something similar to that, we cannot call it being self-published by Professor. Best Regards and please give the source a second thought, there is no personal benefit i can gain from it. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It is self-published by Anwar Ansari. Who is he? Where is the peer review? Have you actually read our policies or are you continuing to plough your own furrow? - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Under that definition, every book, article and a news story written out there can be called self-published by author of that piece, which means no book, article or news story can be used as a source. I don't call these policies contorted for no reason. However somebody wants to define them, defines them and the whole group comes to aid. Do you people have a secret meeting place somewhere at Wikipedia which i am not aware of where you get together and make a plan of attack. I have seen this at multiple articles where same group of people come and aid each other. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There really is no cabal. The fact that you are seeing behaviour of the type you refer to is probably because you're not doing things properly, as various people have tried to explain at various times. Did you see "peer review" in my explanation? The default assumption for any source must be that it is unreliable until proven otherwise. This is especially true of websites, where any twit can write anything and get a nanosecond or two in the sun. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)