Talk:Muhammad Zakariya Kandhlawi/Archive 1

Untitled
Muḥammad Zakarīyā al-Kāndahlawī is not a good article title. --Striver 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
You cannot say that without giving a reason. I know and care little about M Z al-K but Wikipedia standards require an explanation. I wonder in what peculiar sense the word "ascribe" has been used ever since the article was created, the OED and online dictionaries give no meaning that seems appropriate.--SilasW 20:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What's your Science?
"best remembered for his contribution to hadith sciences" An essential feature of Science is the possibility of its being disproved. The science of say 1900 no longer holds in detail, the changes are what has led to even such now commonplace things as mobile phones. Science proposes XXX, then XXX is found not to fit, so XXX2 is proposed and using XXX2 all sorts of goodies may be made, then tweak and tweak again. How does that match anything to do with the "Its true because you are told it is" of religion? --SilasW (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed science to studies. Changed ascribed to subscribed. Took links off later "hadiths" and rendered them in normal letters not italics, "hadith" is used in English by those who need to refer to the concept.--SilasW (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Useless reference
In the article the reference's name is writ in arabic script. Does en.WP regard references in other languages as valid? Or should a peer-reviewed translation be required? But in any case, although what shows on the page is araby, the link that pops up is a web address in west European characters. What is the point of writing in an encyclopedia something which the majority of seekers for enlightenment could not read, unless it be for cultural vanity? Nevertheless those points are academic (in the worst sense) as a click gives "The page cannot be displayed".--SilasW (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural confusions
The article gives subject's d.o.b. as "Thursday, the 11th of Ramadan, 1315 Hijri". To give a time of birth in WP is most unusual. Is there some cultural significance?

The box gives the d.o.b. in a less culturally restricted form, arguably one which should also be given in the text, even parenthetically.

Saying "Thursday" displays confusion, for Muslim days do not start at midnight. "Khamiis" if you like. Also "at eleven o'clock" displays more confusions.

First: Was it 11 o'clock by day or by night?

Second: Which system of counting hours was used? The "eleven o'clock" follows a Muslim style date but was its zero at midnight? or at dusk.--SilasW (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please make this article more neutral. I tried as best as possible thank you - anonymous

Anecdotes
Why should this section in the article not be deleted?--SilasW (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric writing
The point of WP articles is surely not to be a poster for cultural vanity but to let the unaquainted understand a matter. This article, full of transliterated words (possibly from the Arabic) and accounts of behaviour seemingly strange, fails, (was the father's hair performance peculiar or a cultural habit?). The length of the article discourages reading.--SilasW (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to 114.76.76.125
Thank you for removing the "anecdotes" section--SilasW (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia articles
Wikipedia articles follow the Manual of Style and its associated guides which have been developed by the Wikipedia community in order to make Wikipedia articles easier to read, higher quality and generally consistent in appearance.

I have reverted the edits of User: 99.240.111.186, which have not been in the Wikipedia style, for the following reasons:

I will continue to revert changes that violate the Wikipedia Manual of Style or other policies, and will protect the article to prevent these changes if necessary. Ground Zero | t 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Dates should no longer be linked in Wikipedia, unless there is a really good reason to do so. See WP:CONTEXT
 * 2) It is incorrect to link plain English words or to link the same thing over and over. These links, like date links, add clutter to articles without providing useful information. See WP:OVERLINK.
 * 3) Links should not be made to articles that do not exist yet unless you plan to write an article for those subjects really soon. Books published in a foreign language are a good example of subjects about which there is likely never going to be a Wikipedia article (unless you write one yourself). These “dead links” appear in red, and make the article more difficult to read.
 * 4) Headings must follow “sentence case”, and not “Title Case”. In sentence case, only the first word and proper nouns (like the names of people, places and organizations) should be capitalized. Don’t capitalize all the words as you would in Title Case. See WP:MOSHEAD.
 * 5) External sources (i.e., not other Wikipedia articles) should be provided for any information that is added. See Verifiability.
 * 6) Articles should be written in a neutral tone. See WP:NPOV. Just report the facts, and let readers draw their own conclusions. We do not have to tell the reader that the subject of the article was a good person or a great scholar. If the person’s actions and words show this, then the reader will draw that conclusion for her or himself.

Who is Hadhrat?
The article, about Muhammad Zakariya al-Kandahlawi, drops, as far as I can understand it, into trivial tales about a previously unmentioned Hadhrat. Who he?--SilasW (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dates
The precept that articles are for anyone to comprehend appears to be violated grossly by the giving of dates in a calender peculiar to some group. I may not be a Christian but I am quite happy and feel no cultural insecurity that WP dates this, my, comment as "23 October 2009"--SilasW (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable ideas
Are not the concepts listed as the subject's Notable ideas: "Basic principles and practices of Islam and global brotherhood", not really his ideas? Perhaps his beliefs or his ideals but the basic principles and practices (varied among the various branches of the religion) are antique. Does not the murderous mutual antagonism displayed by those various branches makes mock of any idea of global brotherhood.--SilasW (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)