Talk:Abraham in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Islamic views on Abraham)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: no move. -- tariqabjotu 22:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


– The article i want to move to Ibrahim is Islamic views on Abraham. As Islamic views on Abraham depicting the Prophet Ibrahim in Islam so i believe the name of the page should also be depicting the way it is spelled and understood in Islam. While the Islamic views on Abraham would be treated as a redirect to the page Ibrahim and Page Ibrahim should be move to Ibrahim (disambiguation). As the Prophet Ibrahim is a prominent figure in Islam therefore majority of the places and names of person are named after Him as also show in Ibrahim (disambiguation) page. So i believe the primary topic should be Islamic views on Abraham and the disambiguation page Ibrahim should be moved to Ibrahim (disambiguation). Please provide your opinion regarding the move with justification whether positive or negative. Ibrahim ebi (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • At Ibrahim's ebi's request, I've added several related topics to the RM. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources in favor of the move:

  • The Holy Quran Text,Translation and Commentary by A.Yousuf Ali : Considered as one of the renowned Book for Quranic Translation into English also uses Transliteration such as Yunus, Ibrahim, Yusuf, Nuh etc
  • Books:
1. Muslim Names : Important sources for Muslim names after the respective Prophets. Also been depicted in the respective disambiguation pages. Therefore they must be treated as primary topics.
2. Islamic Beliefs, Practices, and Cultures : Shows the Appropriate spelling and Transliteration of Arabic into English.
3. Stories of the Prophets in the Holy Qur'an by Non-Muslim Author : Shows the Appropriate spelling and Transliteration of Arabic into English.
4. New Encyclopedia of Islam: Concise Encyclopedia of Islam : Shows the Appropriate spelling and Transliteration of Arabic into English.
5. The Quran: With Or Against the... Shows the Appropriate spelling and Transliteration of Arabic into English.
"Muslim Names" is not one of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. "Therefore they must be treated as primary topics" does not follow from their appearance there. Those sources support the conclusion that the topics need to be disambiguated from the ambiguous transliteration, not that they are the primary topic for the ambiguous transliteration. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Disagree with all proposed moves. As this is the English language Wikipedia, article titles should use the names that are most common in English, not the names that are most common among Muslims (whether they be English-speaking Muslims or otherwise), because Muslims do not constitute the majority of English speakers. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a way to translate Arabic into English that says transliteration of إبراهيم is Ibrahim, موسى is Musa and so on. And the fact is that the article is focusing on the way they are understood in Islam so they should be depicting the way they are Spelled in Islam. ::Firstly its hard for people to search with such a long and uncommon prefix "Islamic view of xyz" and one has to go through a tough task in finding the proper page.
And the second thing is that they should be used as Quranic names because when we say Nuh it is not perceived by most Non Muslims as Noah. And that built up a huge gap between Quranic character and Biblical character and therefore mostely perceived as some new character. So i believe that as they are Proper Noun Quranic name should be "Nuh" and Biblical name should be "Noah" and so on. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
No opinion on the other proposed moves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
You are right that they are Arabic names my point is also the same that as they are depicting the view of Muslims they should definitely be spelled the way they are perceived in Islam. Further as you pointed out the books majority of them whether by Muslims or Non Muslims they uses the Transliteration of Arabic into English see this Stories of the Prophets in the Holy Qur'an By Ruth Woodhall. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Ibrahim, Musa, and Isa are names 'Personal Noun' and cannot be categorized as Arabic or English. Although this is the English language Wikipedia it is for international English people, Muslims do not constitute the majority of English speakers but they constitute huge majority who can use this Wiki for searching Ibrahim/Isa because average beginner of English have access to Wiki. Article titles should use the names that are not just most common in English speaking people, but the names that are most common among all English users (whether they be English-speaking or otherwise).--Md iet (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Agree. Ibrahim, Musa, and Isa are names 'Personal Noun' and cannot be categorized as Arabic or English. Although this is the English language Wikipedia it is for international English people, Muslims do not constitute the majority of English speakers but they constitute huge majority who can use this Wiki for searching Ibrahim/Isa because average beginner of English have access to Wiki. Article titles should use the names that are not just most common in English speaking people, but the names that are most common among all English users (whether they be English-speaking or otherwise). --Md iet (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. First, if you have not already done so, post a notice about this request at WP:VPP, because this is a very large request that cannot occur on a single talk page. Having said that...oppose all of these, just like I did when Md iet proposed similar changes before. As then, Md iet and the proposer fail to understand basic Wikipedia article naming guidelines. We must always use the names commonly used in English sources. We're not saying that "Abaraham" is English; rather, we're saying that in English sources, the term used for this religious/historical person is "Abraham" in by far the majority of these sources. Our policies on naming articles do not allow us any other option. So, you actually only have 2 options: 1) show that the names of these people is more commonly Isa, Ibrahim, et al in English sources or 2) change our article naming policies. If you do not do one of these, this discussion is moot, because a local discussion cannot override site-wide policies (see WP:CONLIMITED). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I have added some books as sources favoring the move please to check if they are enough or i should add more sources. Surely i will post a notice on WP:VPP. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose - can't see this working. For example: Islamic view of NoahNuh? No-one (who doesn't already know) will go looking for the Islamic view of Noah under Nuh. Perhaps this would make sense on an Islamic-language wiki, but not here William M. Connolley (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with your main points, I think “Islamic-language wiki” is nonsense. To what religion do you think English belongs?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"No-one (who doesn't already know) will go looking for the Islamic view of Noah under Nuh" ,this is OK but he can always first go to main article Noah and then go to Nuh as there is sub section on Islamic view in main article Noah. But imagine general English readers (mostly non speaking (in more majority then speaking) English) who know Noah as Nuh only will go.--Md iet (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose The proposed moves are merely to English transliterations of Arabic versions of names of historical/religious figures, NOT to separate figures themselves, and there are already English names which are used predominantly for all of these figures. They aren't stand-alone, distinct, separate articles, rather they are "spin-out" articles split off from the main articles about said figures; for example Islamic views on Abraham is just its own article because the article Abraham is too long to contain all of the text it needs to. Per WP:SUMMARY, sections are "spun out" as their own articles, and that's all that was done here. Since these are dependent articles, the naming should reflect a) predominant English spellings and b) the relationship to the parent articles. --Jayron32 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The prefix is problematic in this case if it was Abraham (Quranic figure) then there would be no issue with the title as Job (biblical figure) as it becomes difficult to search and one cant search using the search bar. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose' per WP:COMMONNAME. The overwhelming majority of sources in the English language use Abraham, Jesus etc when discussing the Muslim concepts of these characters. Muslim religious texts don't, but in the English language they are in the minority. This is a pretty straightforward instance of WP:COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we should use the common English name(s). StAnselm (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we should use the common English name(s). But do we already have redirects in place so that someone typing Musa would get linked to Moses *and* Islamic views of Moses? I can't tell from the proposal. That might help English-speaking Muslims trying to look up names familiar from religious sources. Zora (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I just want to add that I wholeheartedly agree with Zora that any helpful redirects should be recreated. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Zora you have come up with a very good point if "Musa" is made redirect to "Islamic views of Moses" and so on it would be the best possible way out as a neutral option favoring both parties. Will close the Talk if other agrees on this. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed moves support the creation of redirects. As others have said we should use the Accepted English language names of these figures, but redirects are cheap and could help users find the content they are looking for. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    They're not as cheap as all that here. Musa for example, is a disambiguation page, but I agree that it should redirect to Islamic view of Moses, and that the disambiguation page should move to Musa (disambiguation). StAnselm (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    Exactly if the Disambiguation pages are moved to "xyz (disambiguation)" and the titles are made a redirects to "Islamic view fo xyz" then it would be favorable to English user and Muslim users depicting a neutral point of view. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    Only if there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "xyz" should the disambiguation page be moved to "xyz (disambiguation)". No indication is given here that the "Islamic view of alternate-name-of-xyz" is the primary topic for "xyz" (according to the primary topic criteria). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Qualified oppose The name used here should be that most used in reliable English sources, as per policy. I have not reviewed all of the articles, that's why I'm making a qualified oppose for this particular article. You cite Yousuf Ali as backing your position but it's the opposite: He does use the "Ibrahim" transliteration in division headings, but in his English translation he solely uses "Abraham". The same for Pickthal. Shakir uses "Ibrahim". So the preponderance there is on "Abraham". The most recent edition of the Brill Encyclopedia of Islam, which is cited, and, IMO, the best source used, uses "Abraham". There are 8 other English-language sources cited: Glasse, Oktar/Yahya(?!), Lings, Azzam(?), University of Kansas Medical Center(?!), Fleischer, Weinstein(?), and Wheeler. Of those, only the University of Kansas Medical Center uses "Ibrahim" as primary, and perhaps Azzam, which I can't find, and, from what I can tell, is a children's book. The sources are clearly in favour of "Abraham". You say that "the article is focusing on the way they are understood in Islam so they should be depicting the way they are Spelled in Islam". That is absolutely true, in a sense: The name used should be the one used in the English reliable sources concerning Islam. But look at the evidence: Yusufali uses "Abraham", Pickthal uses "Abraham", albeit Shakir uses "Ibrahim", and the secondary sources favour "Abraham". These are the English primary and secondary sources used for the article which deal with the topic in an Islamic context. The Brill Encyclopedia of Islam is about Islam, and it's article about Abraham is an article about Islam with respect to Abraham. That the majority of Muslims do not read or even care about Encyclopedia of Islam or Yusufali's or Pickthal's translations is irrelevant, because there is no logical relation between, on the one hand, what the majority of Muslims care about or read, and, on the other hand, what is an English-language reliable source concerning Islam. Maybe you're right: Maybe English-language scholars should use "Ibrahim" and not "Abraham" when writing about this figure in an Islamic context. However, unfortunately, the English Wikipedia can only reflect their scholarship but cannot improve it, as per policy. Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 02:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
As you pointed out that Pickthal and Yusuf Ali uses "Abraham" but my point is it is used simultaneously as Abraham (Ibrahim) keeping regard for both English people and the Muslim so there is no ambiguity regarding the person referred. And i am sure one will not come up with a single source using the title "Islamic view of Abraham" rather majority of the sources uses "Abraham (Ibrahim)". So the policy of Wikipedia does not implies on using Prefixes such as if the person has English common names the "Islamic view of" is added as a prefix with the English common name. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - talking about the redirects, I don't think they can be decided in a centralised discussion. I can appreciate that "Musa" most commonly refers to Moses, I would have a harder time accepting that Yunus most commonly refers to Jonah. StAnselm (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The reason for discussing the redirects is that currently "Musa" etc are disambiguation pages and the respective disambiguation pages are a redirect to the title that needs a debate too. Yunus does most commonly refers to Jonah as here -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah no - that doesn't prove anything. The question is whether someone typing in "Yunus" is more likely to be looking for the prophet or, for example, Muhammad Yunus. StAnselm (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Majority of the names of Muslims are named after the prophets as you have pointed out one.In this case the name "Muhammad" is in respect to prophet Muhammad and Yunus is in respect to prophet Yunus. See Yunus (disambiguation) Majority of the names you will find is of Muslim. And it will not offend them if Prophet Yunus is treated as primary topic because the name is adopted in His respect. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, certainly for all the words that have other meanings in English, unless the Islamic name can be independently established as the primary topic. Prior to today, Musa was for me only the genus of banana plants. I'm not happy with "Islamic views on..." (although I like the alternative "... in Islam"), but this isn't the solution.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm this is the thing when Muslims says "Musa" its not perceived by majority of the Non-muslims as "Moses" and is always treated as a new figure creating a gap. While if its simultaneously used as Moses (Musa) or Moses (Prophet Musa) or something like this it would be better. Please bold you support in favor of "I like the alternative "... in Islam")" -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would you accept Moses in Islam? The reason I dislike "Islamic views on..." is that it implies there is an "Islamic" view in contrast to the "real" view, which I hope we all agree is POV. But "Moses" is what we call Musa in English. I think if you were okay with all these being changed to "[English name of the prophet or holy figure] in Islam", you'd get a lot more support (including mine). --Curtis Clark (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes i wholeheartedly accept Moses in Islam in fact all other moves should be "xyz in Islam" that would be good along with making Musa a redirect to Moses in Islam and Musa should be moved to Musa (disambiguation).Similarly for all other "Xyz" titles should be moved to "xyz (disambiguation)". As that would be favorable to all as majority insist in using the English common name but they should put some regard for the English speaking Muslim by making "Musa", "Ibrahim" etc redirect to "xyz in Islam".Thanks -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I strongly oppose these redirects; it presupposes that the primary topics for these words in English are the Arabic names of the prophets, and in most cases this is simply not true.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
In most cases please specify. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, as far as I can tell, in every case.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
see here this one is for Musa i can provide you with more evidence if you say so. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The present names "Islamic views on Abraham", etc. are very good names for these topics if Wikipedia needs to have articles on them. The argument put forward in the many promotional postings for this RM,[1] is that the current names make it "difficult to search the topic" - I think that the reverse is true. The normal English-language names are Abraham, Moses, etc. Having rival Islamic articles written as if these figures only appear in Islam would be most unhelpful. It is not at all obvious to English-speakers that there is any connection between Ibrahim and Abraham.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Toddy1 i have agreed with the opinion that instead of "Islamic view of..." it should be "xyz in Islam" because no buddy would use the uncommon prefix but if its a suffix as said it would be appreciable. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, the articles are about Mohammed and his followers' views about historic or mythological Jewish people. There are lots of articles on "Islamic views on..." It is a good term to search on. If you created an article on Mohammed and his followers' views about pork, "Islamic views on pork" would be a good title. I will not even write the alternative you seem to be proposing.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see an article Christian views on Abraham. Admittedly there is no article on Abraham in Christianity, either, so perhaps all of this is non-notable and should go to AfD.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
As prophet job is title as Job (biblical figure) my point is why is it not titles as "Biblical view of Job" the WP:COMMONNAME English Common names should be used but does not says that "Islamic view of xyz" is used so if its "Xyz in islam" or "Xyz (Islamic view)" would be appropriate as the prefix is so uncommon. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
No, because Job (biblical figure) follows COMMONNAME, as it uses the most common form of the name in English (Job) and disambiguates it just sufficiently to make the subject clear. Were we to do the same for, for example, Nuh (koranic figure), that would be wrong on a couple of levels: Nuh is not a common name in English; and it implies that Noah and Nuh are separate characters, which i suspect is not justified. On the other hand, Biblical view of Job would also be wrong, as it would limit the subject unnecessarily (it wouldn't be possible, for example, to talk about Job's comforters in literature). Cheers, LindsayHello 18:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree as majority is opposing but Noah is.
This is why i am saying that Job (Islamic figure) is better then "Islamic view of Job". and Ayub should redirect to Job (Islamic figure).And similarly for other topics-- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My Oppose is probably unnecessary in view of the numbers and views expressed above. Clearly this is contrary to current practice and not in line with English usage. Useful redirects should, however, be created or disambiguated. Cheers, LindsayHello 15:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the English Wikipedia, and we should use those names as are best know to the English speaker. We could have redirects like those, that is no problem. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Another Source in favor of the move See the article on BBC Religion.
On Musa here
On Ibrahim here Also An article on Eid-ul-Adha Focuses on "The story of Ibrahim's sacrifice".

And they also prefer using "...in Islam" not "Islamic view of..." And though the top titles is Ibrahim, Musa etc. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose while supporting the creation of redirects for such widely used alternative spellings as “Ibrahim”, as well as including them in the lead (as has been done here), to ensure they’re useful as search terms. Regarding the titles, in general I would prefer the name to come first: “Abraham in Islam”, “Abraham in Christianity”, e.g., reinforcing their status as oversized sections. I suppose it goes without saying that these articles should only be created where the parent article is large enough to need breaking up.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think we need to invoke COMMONNAME here particularly. The proposed moves are really confusing. Take this one:
So Abraham and Ibrahim will be about the same man from different perspectives instead of a proper discussion about how Judeo-Christian opinions differ from Islamic ones. This is going to create a whole host of parallel articles, contrary to almost everything we normally do. We do not have an article on Danzig about its history as a German city and another Gdańsk about its time as part of Poland, for example. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, I did oppose this above, but I can't let the faulty reasoning go. We have three articles on Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul, which are the same city under different names. Wikipedia does sometimes have separate articles on the same entity via different names. I don't think the encyclopedia would be well served by doing it in this case, but you do your ends no bit of service by bringing up faulty reasoning in defending the correct position. --Jayron32 05:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree - Conditionally - The name should be as used in the Qur'an, but the more common English name should all ways be mentioned in the first use of the name in each section to keep it both searchable and clear to all readers. 173.168.140.188 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is the English language Wikipedia and the accepted English renderings of these names should be maintained. Since Muslims, Jews and Christians agree that all of these people existed, but differ on some of the historic specifics "x views on y" or "y in x" is the best format, where one of these groups disagree with the mainstream. However, I do not oppose creating redirects where the names do not overwrite current English words, or the common names of other famous people, and create other unnecersary disambiguation.176.24.246.183 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2012 (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.

New requested move, related to above[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: move articles to X in Islam. -- tariqabjotu 15:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


So User:Ibrahim ebi seems now to have a secondary suggestion of a move from "Islamic view of Abraham" to "Abraham in Islam" (and the same change mutatis mutandis for the other articles). I see no problem with this move, as they seem to be synonymous titles. And if this somehow makes it easier for the people who would want to find these articles to find them, then that is an improvement (which I'd remain agnostic on, but would just defer to others). --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 22:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for incorporating the New RMs on my behalf. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I see the POV argument, but I think it is also less misleading. "Islamic view of..." suggests that it is essentially the same character with some subtle variations. Actually, all these figures are markedly different, and sometimes unrecognisable, in terms of their life stories, teaching etc in Islamic tradition/Qu'ran compared to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. This title makes it clearer that they are in fact different figures with only a name (or cognate thereof) in common. DeCausa (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Although these figures are not different, but if someone think so and there is so much difference in their life stories, teaching etc than these article become more primary articles and it is more than justified that the primary name should also be included in the title, and title "X in Islam (Islamic name)" would be more appropriate as suggested by me down.--Md iet (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per my suggestion and discussion here and here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The articles are about historic or mythological Jewish people, who died long before Mohammed. They are not really in Islam at all. Certainly Mohammed and his followers' had views about them, and believed that the religion of these historic/mythological figures was the same as their own. There are lots of articles on "Islamic views on...", which makes it a good term to search on. Since Mohammed and his followers also had views on pork, alcohol and females having sex outside marriage, it would surely be preferable to stick with the "Islamic views on..." formula for article titles, rather than the alternative "XXXX in Islam".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy1 (talkcontribs) 00:00, 17 December 2012‎
I don't really see how you can claim that these "articles are about historic or mythological Jewish people", when the articles are about these figures from an Islamic perspective, which does not describe them as Jewish but as Muslim (besides, no one seriously says that Noah was Jewish). What evidence do you have that all of these figures are Jewish? There's no historical evidence of a Jewish Moses or a Jewish Abraham, for example. You would have to depend on mythology, but I don't think it would be right to give one popular mythology priority over another. I also don't see why you say that these figures "are not really in Islam". There are Islamic doctrinal texts which describe these figures. What else would it be for a figure to be in a religion? --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 01:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Support' for change of "Islamic view of X" → "X in Islam" . This may be added with Islamic name within bracket e.i. Jesus in Islam (Isa), this will further help the people who know Jesus by only name of 'Isa Masih'(In India all common man irrespective of religion know Jesus by this name only). --Md iet (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support simply "X in Islam", which is clear and effective. "Islamic views on X" sounds like it's relegating Islam to being an "outside view", in a way. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Having commented in favour above, I’ll register my support here.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I’m registering my support here. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
As we are discussing change of title in right perspective, the suggestion of including Islamic name in title "X in Islam (Islamic name)" will further make topic user friendly, clear, benefit majority of people and further enhance Wiki reputation as Encyclo for International English knowing people. This will be more near to the original suggestion of Ibrahim ebi and also satisfying most of readers comment. Any further feedback on this is welcome please.--Md iet (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
We cannot put the Islamic name in parenthesis, because parentheses are only used for disambiguation purpose (i.e., if there are two people with the same name, we use some sort of descriptor to distinguish the two). And, again, there's no need for what you propose, because we have redirects and dab pages to help people find when using the name that isn't standard in English. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
We will use a link to the target page on Ibrahim, Musa etc as done with planet Jupiter here and use the top most slot at the disambiguation page to link to the target page as being the most common prophet name in Islam and it would be the best solution out. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
That is in effect establishing a primary topic for the terms -- which is being pretty soundly rejected. There may be support for renaming the articles (i.e,. X in Islam vs Islamic view of X), but there is no way this mass move discussion can be taken as endorsing the subjects as the primary topic for the terms. olderwiser 00:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess this should be discussed in a new request but the first priority is to move "Islamic view of...", "Islamic views of..." to "...in Islam". Thanks -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If you'll restrain yourself, you're actually getting some traction on the word order change.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm in that case i would say Ibrahim is most commonly the prophet see the disambiguation page Ibrahim there is a sura from Quran names Ibrahim (sura) Arabic name Ibrahim (name) Ibrahim article on BBC religion here. My point is not to make it he primary topic it just that the most likelihood when someone lands on page Ibrahim is Prophet Ibrahim as the majority of the names are adopted after Him and you will find majority of the Muslims adopting the name after Him. Similarly for other prophet names. As far as i perceive if you place it at the top does not make it the primary topic its just that the most likelihood is the prophet Ibrahim. See Einstein (disambiguation) the most likelihood is theoretical physicist Einstein, Also UK (disambiguation) most likelihood is United Kingdom. So why not with Ibrahim etc. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Einstein (disambiguation) and UK (disambiguation) are arranged that way because the physicist and the nation ARE the primary topics for those terms. So if you want to make Ibrahim the same, that suggest you want the prophet to be the primary topic for the term. olderwiser 01:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
If there is reservation on putting the real name of the person (who is known by it by a vast majority of people) within parentheses then it can be put without the same as "X in Islam, 'real name in Islam'". Question is of not only reaching to the topic, it is also important by what means. Why should majority English reader whose prophet is overwhelmingly known by a name "Ibrahim" should reach to their topic using disambiguation page, the title can be "Abraham in Islam, Ibrahim". Let ‘Abraham’ be prime topic as there can’t be two prime article of one person, but his most familiar name can always have place in relevant topic.--Md iet (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Md iet, you've asked for this same thing a hundred times before. And every time you've been turned down, usually by factors of ten or more to one. Your continually raising this possibility, which flat out violates several different Wikipedia policies, is very quickly reaching WP:DEADHORSE level tendentiousness. Drop. It. Please. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly as Md iet said as ‘Abraham’ is the prime topic and there can’t be two prime article of one person, but his most familiar name can always have place in relevant topic. because if one search for "Ibrahim" and lands on Ibrahim the most likelihood is to go for the Prophets in Islam "Ibrahim" not Abraham and if not the one might have search for Abraham. Or on second thought we can use both by phrasing it in a way that can be favorable to both the parties. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Whether the prophet is the primary topic in English for Ibrahim is a very different discussion from whether the article should be titled Abraham in Islam or Islamic view of Abraham. olderwiser 12:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm in that case i think we should stick to the first step of RMs that is moving "Islamic view of..." to "...in Islam" and later on we would discuss whether it should be placed at the top of the disambiguation page or not in another RM. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Ibrahim is most prominent prophet of Islam, and this discussion affect title of topic on prophet Ibrahim hence it is very much related with present discussion. If there is no further suggestions can we move for consensus on "Abraham in Islam, Ibrahim" or “Ibrahim, Abraham in Islam”.--Md iet (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That's not not what was proposed, and so far as I can tell, there is not consensus for such titles. olderwiser 12:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That was not proposed that's why further suggestion are asked for, if no objection on the new proposal, we may proceed further.--Md iet (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
No, the proposal is "X in Islam" and that seems to be gaining consensus support. You wanted to have "X in Islam (Islamic name)" and as far as I can see you are the only one supporting that. As it is receiving no support I suggest you drop it. DeCausa (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, Agreed, but my main aim was to make easy reaching to the topic. Why should majority English reader whose prophet is overwhelmingly known by a name "Ibrahim" should reach to their topic using disambiguation page. As suggested somewhere in discussion above, let us make 'Ibrahim' redirect the page to "Abraham in Islam", this will make majority English reader to reach the prophet directly and from there they can move to 'Abraham' if they want to read further. Let there be another page 'Ibrahim (disambiguation)' for all other Ibrahim. Hope this is workable solution and we can adopt this for all related figures.--Md iet (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support there are currently three different sets of titles being used, "Islamic view of", "Islamic views of" and "in Islam". Using one standard title would make it easier for the reader. It is also less POV. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Question does this refer only to the various articles about prophets or to all the other articles titled Islamic view? Some of them like Islamic view of angels would seem to go along with the titles mentioned above but others are less clear, Islamic views on evolution. Also there is Idris (prophet) with the redirect from "Islamic view of Enoch" and Uzair redirect from "Islamic view of Ezra". Given that the connection with the Biblical names are disputed I assume that they will both stay where they are and not be moved to "X in Islam"? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed you are right. Islamic view of Hagar, Islamic views of Mary etc too goes along with the titles mentioned as being person. And those prophets that don't have a common English name and are disputed should be titled according to Romanization of Arabic or as used by Yousuf Ali in the English translation of Quran. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Opposed previous suggestion; Support move to N in Islam format, without using the alternate name in parentheses. A little consistency across titles is not a bad thing. Cheers, LindsayHello 03:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this suggestion for "Islamic views on X" to "X in Islam". Reasonable, more concise, works for me. --Jayron32 04:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the English encyclopedia, and the common english spelling should be used. Someone looking for specifically Islamic views of someone is presumably doing so because he knows the more general non-Islamics view predominant in most English speaking countries and is interested in broadening their cultural knowledge, an excellent purpose for an encyclopedia. The name they will know is the non-Islamic name, so that should be the main title. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Either DGG has misunderstood here, or I have. Can the propose clarify: this RM would change "Islamic view of Abraham" to "Abraham in Islam", not "Ibrahim in Islam", right? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Your understanding is also mine, Qwyrxian; were it revealed to be otherwise, i would withdraw the support i offered above. "Abraham in Islam" does appear to be what Atethnekos suggested in the initial comment, stamped 22:14, 16 December 2012. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey hey hold on this RMs would change "Islamic view of..." to "...in Islam" and would use common English names Abraham, Moses etc as majority are opposing using Arabic names and if there is no such common English names then would use Romanization of Arabic. Please don't create a confusion. And secondly "Ibrahim in Islam" does not even make sense it either makes sense if its "Ibrahim" or "Abraham in Islam". -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ibrahim. Islamic view of Abraham makes sense and is better than Abraham in Islam. Furthermore, there are many articles/potential articles or redirects/potential redirects that make perfect sense if named as "Islamic view of"... because they show the Islamic view of it. There will always be a need for Islamic view of... type articles/redirects. In some cases, saying so-and-so "in Islam" is not very nice - even though there is an Islamic view of it.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood Ibrahim ebi. They are asking for a move to "xxx in Islam". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Conclusion: As far as I understood from all of above discussion, all Atethnekos, DGG, Qwyrxian, LindsayH, CambridgeBayWeather and Ibrahim ebi support the best alternative to be "X in Islam" i.e. 'Abraham in Islam' and not 'Ibrahim in Islam'. Toddy1 has some counter comment on this. OK?
Perhaps Ibrahim ebi could clarify whether he/she supports Abraham is Islam or not. "'Ibrahim in Islam' does not even make sense it either makes sense if its 'Ibrahim' or 'Abraham in Islam'" sounded to me like he/she did not support.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Toddy I am supporting "Abraham in Islam" , "Moses in Islam" etc they are more appropriate titles when referring to a person because i believe the Name should be placed first then any suffix should be added see BBC religion articles here and here. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I repeat my further suggestion: “Abraham in Islam” is OK, but why should majority English reader whose prophet is overwhelmingly known by a name "Ibrahim" should reach to their topic using disambiguation page. As suggested somewhere in discussion above, let us make 'Ibrahim' redirect the page to "Abraham in Islam", this will make majority English reader to reach the prophet directly and from there they can move to 'Abraham' if they want to read further. Let there be another page 'Ibrahim (disambiguation)' for all other Ibrahim. Hope this is workable solution and we can adopt this for all related figures.--Md iet (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss your idea that the primary topic for Ibrahim is Islamic views on Abraham/Abraham in Islam. If you wish to propose that, you should make a separate requested move. In that move discussion, you will need to show evidence that Islamic views on Abraham is the primary topic for the word. Turning lead into gold would be easier.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Ibrahim is name of Islamic prophet, having English name as Abraham , this need no further evidence please. This is very much related with this discussion and only further redirecting procedure need finalization. This will somehow satisfy original proposal for moving "Islamic view of Abraham" to "Ibrahim" discussed and solves grievance of many English readers.--Md iet (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all, Dear Toddy, I forgot to make you clear that there can't be any rust on Gold wherever you keep, Gold needn't to be proved and require no any further evidences.--Md iet (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your best wishes. As a small child in school I was taught that Archimedes first great achievement was devising a non-destructive test for whether an object said to be solid gold, really was solid gold. So clearly there is and always was a need in European societies to test to prove gold. Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to help you see what you need to do to provide evidence of your contention that the primary topic of "Ibrahim" is as you say.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says :

Similarly "Ibrahim" is Islamic prophet is obvious and lot evidence exist, only thing is we have to have common consensus such that a same philosophy applied to all related topics being discussed above. If there is no further suggestion to my opinion we may move forward.--Md iet (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hope there is no further suggestion/views. Can we conclude from above discussion for followings?

-Move "Islamic view of X" → "X in Islam" e.i. Islamic view of Abraham to Abraham in Islam

- Redirect "XXX (real name of X in Islam)" to "X in Islam" e.i. Ibrahim to Abraham in Islam

- In the article of "X in Islam" put hat note as: In Islam, XXX refers to X. For other uses, see XXX (disambiguation)

e.i. In article of Abraham in Islam put Hat note as:

In Islam, Ibrahim refers to Abraham. For other uses, see Ibrahim(disambiguation).

-All the other Islamic prophets, Islamic view of Hagar, Islamic views of Mary etc too goes along with the titles mentioned as being person. And those prophets that don't have a common English name and are disputed should be titled according to Romanization of Arabic or as used by Yousuf Ali in the English translation of Quran.--Md iet (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there is support for moving "Islamic view of X" → "X in Islam". I do not think there is broad support for a blanket policy of redirecting "XXX (real name of X in Islam)" in cases where a page or other redirect already exists at XXX. That claim of primary topic would likely need to be established on a case-by-case basis for each name as I don't think a one-size-fits-all approach will work and the discussion above on this point was at best inconclusive. olderwiser 14:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree; the discussion regarding the move of Ibrahim to Ibrahim (disambiguation) (which already exists, as a redirect), while making Ibrahim redirect to Abraham in Islam, should take place at Talk:Ibrahim (where the subject was already discussed—somewhat inconclusively—last year).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In case there is no further suggestion on main request, shall we conclude that there is majority agreement for : -Move "Islamic view of X" → "X in Islam" e.i. Islamic view of Abraham to Abraham in Islam. For rest of suggestion separate request is already initiated below and can be discussed separately.--Md iet (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2012 (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.

Requested Redirects, related to above[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In addition to opposition to a number of the proposals, what emerges is a clear consensus that these need to be examined separately and should be discussed on the relevant talk pages. I find no consensus that any of part of the proposal should be implemented. Salvidrim!  23:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

All Islamic prophets are such a prominent figure and have well established evidences for real names e.i. Name as used by Yousuf Ali in the English translation of Quran etc. This name can be claimed as primary topic in general. As this topic is being well discussed giving proper notices in all Islam related article and there is very good participation on the subject, It is better, the general guidelines affecting all the Islamic related articles be settled as far as possible such that maximum readers get satisfied and minimum objections are raised in talk pages of individual Islamic articles. If anybody having specific suggestion for any individual Islamic prophet/ prominent figures real name other than suggested can be discussed further. If anybody feels that with that real name there is another personality exist which is more prominent/popular than Islamic figure that also can be discussed, else we may accept that real name as primary name for the topic please.

The specific Islamic names are listed down below for name redirect, may please suggest if there is any other substitute possible, else we may move forward for name redirect for following:

We are not ready to mention real name (most commonly used in English literature in that context) of the prominent religious personality (of majority English reading users) in the title, than it is very well justified that at least we all agree for redirect that particular name to that particular article which is specially related in that context with specific majority. Hope everybody will consider this very important aspect and consider suitably.


Evidence/Sources in favor of the move:

  • The Holy Quran Text,Translation and Commentary by A.Yousuf Ali : Considered as one of the renowned Book for Quranic Translation into English also uses Transliteration such as Yunus, Ibrahim, Yusuf, Nuh etc
  • Books:
1. Muslim Names : Important sources for Muslim names after the respective Prophets. Also been depicted in the respective disambiguation pages. Therefore they must be treated as primary topics.
2. Islamic Beliefs, Practices, and Cultures : Shows the Appropriate spelling and Transliteration of Arabic into English.
3. Stories of the Prophets in the Holy Qur'an by Non-Muslim Author : Shows the Appropriate spelling and Transliteration of Arabic into English.
4. New Encyclopedia of Islam: Concise Encyclopedia of Islam : Shows the Appropriate spelling and Transliteration of Arabic into English.
5. The Quran: With Or Against the...

All the above well established sources show the Appropriate spelling and Transliteration of Arabic into English. These further show that they are eminent religious personality of Islam. As Islam is known to vast majority of world population, these name obviously become Primary Topic as there is no other more popular person available with same exact name. Hope these evidences are enough for the purpose of justification.

The proposal has now been made person specific for the list above and evidences provided. May please suggest regarding any better primary topic on proposal to move forward please-Md iet (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

--Md iet (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ibrahim ebi for correcting the above in my name.--Md iet (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis and is inappropriate as a global proposal. For example, there may be an argument for it in the case of "Nuh", but I doubt it for many of the others. I would say that for English-language readers the most "famous" Harun would be Harun Al-Rashid and that far fewer would be aware of it as a prophet's name. "Yusuf" is far too common a name with far too many well-known holders to have a primary topic. DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear DeCausa, you could only find objection for two names but for them also your reasons are not well convincing.

-Harun Al-Rashid is not just Harun, and Harun Al-Rashid already have article on his name hence it cannot be primary name for Harun please. -There is no person with single name of Yusuf. The all well-known holders listed in article Yusuf has some second name attached with Yusuf. The article Yusuf itself accept: "In Islam, the most famous "Yusuf" is the prophet Yusuf in the Quran".

We may not accept my proposal as global proposal, but surely can be accepted for the person listed above. If for Harun and Yusuf also there are other convincing objection, we can decide as per consensus.--Md iet (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I think, Md iet, you may have a slightly wrong conception of what primary topic means. If it were decided that Harun Al-Rashid be the primary topic for Harun all that would mean is that the latter article would be made a redirect pointing to Harun Al-Rashid; by no means does it mean that because there is already an article at Harun Al-Rashid there cannot be a redirect to it, if consensus is that it be the primary topic. In fact, of course, currently it is not defined that way, so Harun is a disambig page, in mine opinion quite rightly.
Secondly, the quote you give from Yusuf does not quite mean what you seem to think, that the Islamic prophet Yusuf is the primary topic; all it says is that within Islam he is who is usually meant by "Yusuf" ~ to be primary topic it would need to mean that within English language usage..., which i don't think you have provided proof of. Cheers, LindsayHello 12:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Btw, I wasn't suggesting that Harun Al-Rashid should be the primary topic, just that it was evidencing that the Islamic prophet was unlikely to be the primary topic. DeCausa (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose on grounds of lack of evidence. All of them need to be done on a case-by-case basis, with proper evidence provided for each why the primary topic in the English language is as suggested. None of this has been done for any of them. It is not enough for the proposers to merely state a personal belief (though for people expressing support or opposition, then a statement of their own personal belief is kind of evidence). Personally I was unaware that ISA had any meaning other than a type of bank deposit account you can have in England.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There are ample evidences available and well known English sources listed above by Ibrahim ebi are more than sufficient to prove that they are well known personality of Islam and majority English readers know Islam. ISA is not same as Isa and a type of bank deposit account you can have in England cannot be excuse for rejecting ‘Isa’ a redirect please.--Md iet (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Then where is this evidence?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Evidences provided with proposal above please.--Md iet (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
None of that is evidence that would support a primary topic argument.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a blanket proposal. These all need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. First, the specifics for each may vary and second, there has been no evidence provided that any of the terms meet the criteria of primary topic. olderwiser 12:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The proposal has now been made person specific for the list above and evidences provided. May please suggest regarding any better primary topic on proposal to move forward please.--Md iet (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1) It is not clear how the evidence you've presented meets the criteria at WP:primary topic; 2) to establish consensus for each topic, you would need to discuss each one individually in a requested move on the talk page of the affected article. I don't see that there is any way to give any reasonable consideration as a mass move. olderwiser 06:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; must be decided on a case-by-case basis.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The proposal has now been made person specific for the list above and evidences provided. May please suggest regarding any better primary topic on proposal to move forward please.--Md iet (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the blanket proposal. As pointed out above, by DeCausa i believe, there may be some justification for some of these names as the primary topic, but for others there clearly is not. Cheers, LindsayHello
As a secondary point, may i just say that this discussion has become increasingly difficult to parse as suggestion follows suggestion, and request blends into request. At this point, i take it that the original request of a blanket move making the Islamic prophets the primary topics (13 Dec) is dead, but the second request (16 Dec) of changing article titles to "X in Islam" is still viable? Would it not be possible to close out these requests before moving on to this third blanket move, which actually and rather curiously (to me) seems to ignore the previous suggestion of aligning titles as "X in Islam"? Cheers, LindsayHello 08:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed i too think we should close the previous two moves and then work on this request. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, There is little support for first and overwhelming support on second request (16 Dec.)"X in Islam" and the outcome is clear, only someone may please summarize both and declare final consensus.
This third request is to substantiate previous request and as justified above this will make topics further user friendly and reduce unnecessary discussion on talk pages of these topics. The proposal is now made specific to list above, meantime please put forth your suggestion for 'clearly is not topics' please.--Md iet (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
No, you still haven't provided the necessary evidence for your proposal and there's no support for this third request. And in your responses to the "opposes" you appear to miss the point. You have provided no evidence of primary topic. The "evidence" you presented at the top just shows that the name has been used as th name of an Islamic prophet. No one denies that. What you have to do is go through each name and show that the use of that name as an Islamic Prophet is predominant when compared to other uses of that name. Read WP:PRIMARY TOPIC on what's involved and they type of evidence that's needed. That's why that can only be done for practical purposes on the talk page of each article. DeCausa (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed i think that they should be discussed individually on each talk page i would be willing to provide evidence on Md iet behalf and we can have a consensus on it but first i would like to suggest that we should close the previous two request as they are being delayed. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
As previous two request are now close, Dear ebi would you please spare time to start discussion with evidence required on this particular request on the line suggested by you, thanks.--Md iet (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I am willing to help if you start a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves and start a discussion on Ibrahim. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the prevailing opinion that the primary-topic status of each person needs to be taken case by case. The sources cited by Md iet appear quite authoritative regarding transliteration, though, so will be useful in those discussions where they may touch on choices among spelling variants—“Sulayman bin Dawood” vs “Suleiman bin Daoud” and so on. (Thanks to Tariqabjotu for closing the above requests, BTW.) —Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as these forms of the names are not only used in Islam. They are also used by Christian Arabs, and Christians & Jews in various Muslim-majority countries, as personal names and to refer to persons in the Bible. "Idris" is an exception to this as it is not a name in the Bible, but in that case there are other meanings and there is not a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. – Fayenatic London 15:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Infobox[edit]

I have to say that i find this edit by Ibrahim ebi a little POINTy poorly timed at this moment. The previous version of the infobox clearly indicated the Islamic interest in the subject; the current version seems to go out of its way to claim that interest as nearly the only one. Perhaps Ibrahim ebi would like to revert the BOLD action and discuss it here? Cheers, LindsayHello 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

ooh i am not at all getting POINTY here i was just being bold in making the edit and update the contents but i think i should have drop the opinion of making the edit there at this moment. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Ibrahim. I withdraw the POINTy statement, as on rechecking, i am reminded that it refers to purposefully disruptive editing, and i don't believe you were doing that; you were just bold. This disagreement does not show signs of becoming ridiculous, as some on WP do, for which i am glad; as long as we can talk together.... Cheers, LindsayHello 04:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you too for withdrawing that statement. Actually on long run i was trying to make it like this one (Rashidun Caliphs here) as i did earlier for caliphs but i think i should restrict myself in making there move at this time. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the reverting edit summary that templates should not be specific to a single article. That said, I liked your design: perhaps it could be developed into a standard infobox for Muslim prophets, sages, et al., with fields appropriate to the traditions surrounding them. (I imagine many of the Saint template’s entries would still be relevant.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


Proposal to eliminate some of the original research in the article[edit]

People keep adding original research to this article. This is against Wikipedia policy WP:OR.

A good example is this.[2] An IP editor claims: "This is the scholarly view, while the view of the father, is the lay view. This is agreed upon by the highest scholars of Shias, Sunnis, & Quran".[3] But there is no evidence that it is a scholarly view. There are no citations to published books or articles by scholars. In fact, all the citations are to a religious primary source - the Koran. This is called original research.

I propose to delete all paragraphs that either have:

  • No citations, or
  • Only citations to religious primary sources: the Koran, the Bible, hadiths, etc.

This will reduce the amount of original research in the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right that the article need to be cited with secondary sources there is a lot of work that need to be done with the article and there are a huge number of secondary sources but the thing is that the whole article need to be reviewed and cited with both sources. the current edits were argumentative as there are secondary sources favoring the current version as here here etc. but it takes a little time to cite the article with secondary sources. I have added some books recently. So i believe instead of removing the content we need to review the article and cite the article. Thanks --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Adding lists of books to the reference list only helps if you cite from the books.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm i am aware of that. There is a lot of work that need to be done. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Let us review the situation on 1 April. If the article is still full of paragraphs whose only citations are to primary religious sources or are uncited, then I will prune as proposed. If significant progress has been made by then, we can discuss what should be done with any paragraphs that you have been unable to find secondary sources for..--Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
ok --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Just sticking my nose in everyone's business here...am I to understand that until April 1st, then, the goal is to bring as many secondary and tertiary sources as possible for the purposes of replacing the primary sources? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The goal is that statements will be backed by secondary sources. There is no requirement to remove the primary sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo The idea is to provide as much secondary sources as possible as the article lacks secondary sources and relies mainly on primary sources.You can help cite the article. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As promised I have reviewed the situation at more or less 1 April (actually 2 days early). The following two sections consisted purely of original research from religious primary sources, and I have deleted them.

  • Historical narrative in Islam.[4]
  • Significance as a patriarch.[5]

There is still a huge amount of original research in the article, but at least the remaining significant sections have at least some citations to secondary sources. With luck, other editors will either prune out some of text backed only by citations to religious primary sources, or provide some citations to secondary sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)