Talk:Arba'in

An early version of this article was based on translations of the entries for Arba'in in the fr: and de: Wikipedias. -- The Anome 21:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Please try to adhere to Wikipedia policy when editing this article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting personal views or one's favorite branch of Islam. Only state facts backed up by reliable, verifiable sources, not merely opinions or excerpts from various blogs. I intend to remove content which I deem to be contrary to the aims and policies of Wikipedia. If you disagree with my edits, please state your reasons here so they can be discussed, rather than merely initiating a edit war.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Anders Feder! Is there any valid reason for the following:

• 1: You've removed some of the sourced materials without maintaining the reason.
• 2: You've removed some of the sourced materials without maintaining the reason.
• 3: Most of what you've removed are well sourced materials and are not from blog.
• 4: I can't really figure out, why???

By the way I also can not understand why you've mentioned edit war. Does it mean that your editions will likely make other editors involve edit war? Mhhossein (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people on a crusade to promote their religion on Wikipedia unfortunately often indulge in edit warring because they are unable to have their propaganda included under regular standards of reliability and neutrality, as if being disruptive would somehow make them seem more convincing.

• 1: The reason is obvious - the sources are not reliable.
• 2: Same as above.
• 3: The parts I've removed are not well-sourced, but cite the opinion blog of a "faith leader".
• 4: The part is not neutral and unreliably sourced.

--Anders Feder (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: So you are sure about yourself and doubtful about others?

1: So what's the role of hufington post and alalam there? (Although it is not your edition! sorry for the mistake)

2: What's the role of there?

3: Did you call Hufington post a Blog? Which blog do you mean exactly. Parts you removed are mainly from Hufington post!

4: When some parts are not neutral it does not mean that you can delete it, at most you could help it becoming neutral by making copy editions and adding balancing sources. Again, you removed parts from huffington post.

By assuming your good faith in editing the article I won't count them as vandalism. So please help in reaching the consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What I am sure of is that Wikipedia is based on rules, and no amount of religious fervor supersedes those rules. The role of huffingtonpost.co.uk is that of blog host. Al-Alam is a propaganda outlet of the Iranian theocracy[1]. al-mubin.org is a publisher of religious fiction, not a reliable source. As for removing poorly sourced material, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source."[2]. Given that my edits bring the article into accordance with Wikipedia policy, you can't count them as vandalism whether you recognize them as being in good faith or not.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: (1) I really see no solid reason for removal of materials from the blog being hosted by hufington post and the materials from Alalam. You may refer to the discussion occurred. Blogs might be used as reliable sources per WP:NEWSBLOG and considering that Sayyid Mahdi Modarresi is a professional in this field. So, most of the materials related to these two sources should be restored. Albeit we'd better let the readers know whose opinion is being expressed by using "according to..." and etc (this point was also stated in the discussion, while some of the deleted materials were whith this style). Same arguments are used for the materials removed from the reliable source of Independant. (2) By the way how could you recognize al-mubin.org as a publisher of religious fictions? According to whom? Are you evaluating all of the books by all of the authors related to this publisher? Mhhossein (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: (1) There is no discussion of the reliability of blogs on the WP:RSN page you are linking to. Sayyid Mahdi Modarresi is no more a professional than a dancer in the adult entertainment industry is a professional; and neither are reliable sources. I removed no material supported by The Independent. (2) According to their own website, al-mubin.org publishes material "based on the teachings of Prophet Muhammad"; teachings which are all religious fiction. Should we request that WP:RSN vet the reliability of al-mubin.org?--Anders Feder (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Unfortunately wikipedia does not care what we think about persons and sources. Are "teachings of Prophet Muhammad" religious fiction? Mhhossein (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all religious texts are fictional. That's why scholars don't consider them to be reliable sources. I've asked WP:RSN to inform the discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Arba.27een --Anders Feder (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course you've misunderstood the religion! Things are getting interesting, which scholars don't consider them to be reliable sources? Mhhossein (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

All scholars. And no, I haven't misunderstood a thing. It is you who are confusing the fictions of religion with physical reality.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to discuss it and make you believe in religion. My religion is full of scientific facts and in fact a religion without physical reality is not religion! Mhhossein (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars is full of scientific facts too. That doesn't make it any less fictional.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said Wikipedia never cares what your (or my) belief is! Here, being or not being religious is not a criteria of being reliable, is it? . Mhhossein (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia does not care what my or your belief is. Nor have I claimed that it does. It cares whether the sources you cite present the truth or merely a religious fantasy. And scripture has been demonstrated innumerous times to do the latter.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No it never cares whether the source is religious or not! This is your belief! It cares whether the sources is reliable or not. See MOS for Islam related articles! I thought you were familiar with policies, MOS and guidelines. Mhhossein (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. MOS does not say anywhere that scripture is reliable. Because it isn't.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's help to solve this controversy based on the wiki policy. First, wikipedia is not a place to promote positive or negative views about the issues including religion. Second, the article should not contradict with WP:NPOV. It should cover all of the viewpoints either secular or religious with neutral language. Third, the sources should be verifiable.

Based on these rules I suggest replacing Modarresi's article with this one. There are many other authentic sources which can be found easily in google. [3]. However, If Modarresi has any especial view or claim we can add it as a Shia scholar view based on this guideline. Best.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. But the The Independent article does not support all the claims attributed to Modarresi's article. We will need to find reliable sources for every statement made in the present wiki-article.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

First, we can add the issues which are covered by the news agencies such as BBC and Independent as fact. Then we add the claims of religious authorities that have not been covered by these sources as Shia clerics views or claims.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Seyyed for participating the discussion. How about materials from ? Can we ignore it for merely being religious? Mhhossein (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein no , but who is he? Apparently he is a translator.[4] I think we should find more authentic person. As I understand he has translated some information from Mafatih al-Janan and some other sources without mentioning their names! In my view we should refer to reliable secondary sources like Mafatih al-Janan.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am amazed that Anders Feder says that scripture isn't reliable. What of all the contemporary written and archaeological evidence in its favour? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

OF course his opinion is just an opinion here. We'll adhere to the WP rules not Anders Feder, don't we? Mhhossein (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:It's not an "opinion", but a statement of facts. You can believe in whatever figments of imagination you want, but don't bring them into Wikipedia.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder: 1-This is the last time you are insulting my beliefs, I respect yours so please respect mine. 2- So, what's Islam, Christianity and Judaism doing here in WP? 3- Of course we should adhere to the WP rules, as I said. Mhhossein (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Islam, Christianity and Judaism are articles mainly based on reliable sources, which describe religion without trying to make them appear as if they are actually true. There is nothing in Wikipedia's policies which forbid describing things neutrally using reliable sources. But there are things in Wikipedia's policies which forbid relying on sources which are pure fantasy. If these policies cause you offence, you are free to set up your own wiki and use any sources you want there.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Of course We are not talking about the policies. The policies are highly required for maintaining an encyclopedia. This is you who causes offense to one's beliefs. I just asked you not to attack editors personal belief. This is the last time I'm asking you this. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:I am challenging unreliable sources, not personal beliefs. If you don't want your personal beliefs to be challenged, don't cite them as sources on Wikipedia.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder: 1- Where did I exactly cited my beliefs as a source? 2- Religious sources may be deemed as reliable, like many other sources! Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:No, they may not. Per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Religious sources, religious sources may be accepted as a source for their own views, and such personal views should be presented in accordance with WP:RSOPINION. Religious scripture is a primary source[5] and should be avoided per WP:PRIMARY, except for direct quotations. For everything else (history, science etc.), religious sources has long been demonstrated to be unreliable and untruthful and thus not usable here.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: and about the first question? Mhhossein (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: "1- Where did I exactly cited my beliefs as a source?" In all the instances where you act "offended" that the source was revealed to be unreliable.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Even if I suppose that you are true, you've made a wrong conclusion from a fact! Mhhossein (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What are you referring to?--Anders Feder (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Calendar

@Sa.vakilian and Anders Feder: Regarding this edition in which calendar items are removed by Anders Feder; Today is Wednesday, what kind of reference does it need? Mhhossein (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: One that is reliable, e.g. time.gov.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: As you know these dates are unchallengeable and you could tag them with '''{{CN}}''' at most. By the way, per WP:OR we know that the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed. Mhhossein (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: (1) No, I don't know that those dates are "unchallengeable", because nothing is unchallengeable. The notion of "unchallengeability" exists in degenerate religious thinking, but not in informed and civilized discourse. (2) "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."[6] The aim of Wikipedia is not to be a mishmash compilation of unverifiable speculation as you mistakenly think. (3) If the statement is attributable to a reliable source, then go ahead and do it. Until then, it does not belong in Wikipedia. As for whether it is likely to be challenged, that is a moot point - I've already challenged it, and the likelihood of it being challenged is 100%.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Unfortunately, Wikipedia never cares what your belief is about religion, neither do I. So, lets ask Howcheng If you could remove those dates merely for being unreferenced? Btw, did you get the point of France and Paris? does it need a reference? Mhhossein (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I don't care about your beliefs about degenerate religious thinking either, and neither does Wikipedia. It cares about information being verifiable and reliable, no matter how zealously you think that religion is absolved from having to meet those standards. As for France and Paris, you don't even understand what it means. We don't need to cite Paris being capital, because that is verifiable in an infinitude of reliable sources[7][8][9]. The reverse is the case for your calendar.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If we are to follow the letter of the law, then yes, uncited material can be removed, but let's be reasonable here. We're looking at individual calendar dates. Arba'een takes place 40 days after the Day of Ashura. We don't really need a citation for math. If we know that Easter is on a certain day, you can calculate that Ash Wednesday falls 46 days before that, no reference required. —howcheng {chat} 18:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say we need a reference for math. Dating the Day of Ashura is itself dicey, as explained here, and adding 40 to a dicey date does not make it any less dicey.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but that just means that Ashura needs a reference. The date for Arba'een by extension doesn't. —howcheng {chat} 07:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The difference is the same. A reference for neither has been given.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not give dates according to a commonly used (calculated) version of the Islamic calendar, such as the Umm al-Qura calendar of Saudi Arabia, and note that, due to regional differences in regulating the calendar, the actual dates may vary by one or at most two days. An estimated date wouuld seem to be more helpful than no date at all. AstroLynx (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that that would bring the section into compliance with WP:V, that ought to be just fine.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the countries also be mentioned based on the fact that the date varies from place to place? Mhhossein (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source for it, sure.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

So now according to Umm al-Qura calendar of Saudi Arabia you'd better restore the removed materials. Mhhossein (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:Why would I "better" do that? The material was removed in full accordance with WP:BURDEN, just like it should be. If anyone wants to add new material that does not violate WP:V, that's up to them - not me.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Yeah you are right, based on what WP:BURDEN says. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I'll do that ASAP. Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you check how this site actually computes the Islamic dates for Iraq and Iran (and why list only those countries)? I wouldn't be surprized if it gives identical dates for whatever Islamic country you choose. You also got the Islamic years wrong: the current year is 1436 AH, 2005 was 1426 AH. Why give the date for 2005 anyway? AstroLynx (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vgent: I thought that I had fixed those dates (1436 and 1426). Thanks for reminding that. Sorry I don't know the basis of site their work. Mhhossein (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You still got the current year wrong - it is 1436 AH. Doesn't it bother you that you have no idea how the site you refer to computes its dates? AstroLynx (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah you are right! nothing is mentioned on the sighting of the lunar crescent, so they should compute them based on astronomical rules! Mhhossein (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the calendar according to AstroLynx's original proposal, for which there was WP:CONSENSUS.[10] If we want to mention the date for other countries, WP:RELIABLE sources will need to be provided first.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the problem with this site? Mhhossein (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:We don't know who they are or what their methodology is. In general, webpage scripts are a very bad source for Wikipedia's purposes, because their way of functioning can't be reviewed by someone without programming expertise.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Btw, how are you going to mention the countries? I mean is the table suitable for that? Mhhossein (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear to me how the 40 days between Ashura and Arba'een should actually be counted: after 10 Muharram or including 10 Muharram. None of the sources which I have seen is explicit about this. If the latter view is correct then all dates occur one day earlier. Perhaps someone from the Shia community can elaborate on this. AstroLynx (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Muharram can have either 29 or 30 days. Does the text allow for that? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if Arba'een is 40 days after Ashura then it falls on 20 or 21 Safar. If the day of Ashura is included in these 40 days (see my earlier remark) it falls on 19 or 20 Safar. AstroLynx (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arba'een. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710184413/http://elpasoinc.com/readArticleNYT.aspx?guid=04734d5d-49a1-edce-78a3-89dd4b6ccada to http://elpasoinc.com/readArticleNYT.aspx?guid=04734d5d-49a1-edce-78a3-89dd4b6ccada
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/41-Martyrs-as-More-than-Million-People-Mark-Arbae.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Scientists != religious scholars

Question: why does the beginning of the article refer to religious "scientists"? I'm just wondering if this is a mis-translation. In English "scientists" are specifically scholars who study the physical world (directly), not those who study holy writings. Maybe Islamic "authorities"? IAmNitpicking (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

IAmNitpicking:  Done --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "Islamic sciences" is often used. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Islamic+sciences%22&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS768US768&oq=%22Islamic+sciences%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1854j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The root of the word for modern, physical sciences and religious scholarship is the same in arabic علم . https://translate.google.com/#en/ar/scholar --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Largest? Largest?

"Arba'ein is the largest annual pilgrimage in the world ..." So Arba'een is bigger than the Hajj? IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Arbaeen have between 20 to 40 Million pilgrimage; Hajj 1 to 3 Million pilgrimage. M.Nadian (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Spelling

This article now contains at least three spellings of the title word "Arba'een", and an IP editor just removed a fourth. Can the editors agree on a spelling, and maybe someone insert a comment at the top asking that it not be changed? Note that I have nothing remotely like enough expertise to have an opinion on the correct Romanized spelling of an Arabic number. IAmNitpicking (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@IAmNitpicking, M.Nadian, and Mhhossein: Hi everyone, I wanted to follow up on the comment above. The correct Arabic transliteration seems to be Arba'in, per WP:MOSAR. Does anyone object to changing the article name accordingly? Albertatiran (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I think "Arba'een" is a better choice per WP:TITLE and the reliable academic sources [11] which use a similar spelling. I don't agree with the move by User:UtherSRG. Albertatiran's ping came just on 25 Aug. Please move back to the previous title and start a discussion for the move. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein, I'm sorry if I moved the page too early. (Asked for feedback here on August 25 and the page was moved on August 28.) All sources cited in the article use Arba'in, including Brill's Islamica, Iranica, and Momen's Introduction. More importantly, WP:MOSAR favors Arba'in over other transliterations. It's true that Arbaeen has also been used in the literature but it's difficult to see if it's predominant (WP:TRANSLITERATE), at least from the link you shared. In any case, the previous title was Arba'een and not Arbaeen. @Apaugasma, StarkReport, and Ghazaalch: Your views would be very appreciated. Albertatiran (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I've initiated a formal discussion for you. Any potentially controversial move should go through a formal discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

While this matter doesn't seem to be of considerable worry. 'Arba'een' kinda mirrors the prolonged 'ee' sound better than 'Arba'in,' remaining faithful to how individuals vocalize and identify the term. StarkReport (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Albertatiran. Thanks for the ping. Both sounds good to me. I cannot choose between them at the moment. Best. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Arba'een → Arba'in – Per discussion immediately above. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Iraq has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support – Per WP:MOSAR, we should check whether there is a common transcription, which generally is the case with topics that are primarily covered by the popular press to such an extent that even most scholarly sources adopt the spelling used in the popular press (examples include Mecca, Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda). If such an overwhelmingly dominant popular transcription does not exist, we should (still per WP:MOSAR) use are own in-house basic transcription system, which would yield Arba'in.
  Now while Arba'een occurs slightly more often than Arba'in in Google Scholar [12][13], the difference is not of the overwhelming nature that would render Arba'een a WP:MOSAR-style common transcription. Arba'een is also not adopted as a common transcription by scholarly sources such as Encyclopaedia Iranica or Encyclopaedia Islamica, who use Arba'in [14] [15] (compare these same sources' use of the common transcription Mecca [16][17], which would be Makka if they would apply their own transliteration system).
  Since Arba'een is not a WP:MOSAR-style common transcription, we should use our own in-house basic transcription, Arba'in. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  In considering the preferred transliteration for 'Arba'een,' it's important to reflect the pronunciation of the term. The elongated 'ee' sound in the pronunciation is better captured by the spelling 'Arba'een.' than 'Arba'in' This spelling aligns more closely with the phonetic aspect of how the term is spoken and recognized by individuals who use the word in conversation. It maintains the authenticity of the pronunciation and is therefore a preferable representation.

  While the transliteration guidelines are important, they should also take into account the practicality of pronunciation, which 'Arba'een' accurately captures. StarkReport (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Among reliable sources that do use a consistent Arabic transliteration scheme (i.e., scholarly sources), the vast majority use "ī" for ـِي. Among the eleven systems listed at Romanization of Arabic#Comparison table, only one system uses "ee", the Arabic chat alphabet. The basic transcription system described at WP:MOSAR, which is used throughout Wikipedia articles, is a simplified version of some of the most widely used systems in reliable sources (mainly ALA-LC romanization, variants of which account for a large majority of usage in English-language reliable sources).

  One aspect of the simplification inherent in basic transcription, which is wholly peculiar to Wikipedia and mainly devised to make things easier for Wikipedia users who do not know Arabic, is that "ī" becomes "i". This indeed obscures vowel length (the ¯ in ī indicates a long vowel), which is phonemic in Arabic (i.e., the meaning can completely change between a short and a long vowel). WP:MOSAR tries to compensate for that by also allowing strict transliteration (in which the macrons and other diacritics are conserved) at the first mention of Arabic terms (e.g., in the lead sentence). However, the main scheme in use on WP is the simplified basic transcription, which is a trade-off: for those who know Arabic the meaning of words may sometimes become unclear, but for those who do not know Arabic (the majority of en.wiki's readers) the text as a whole becomes much easier to read without all the diacritics.

  At least, this is the type of argument used by those who favor the use of basic transcription. It is a controversial issue: personally, I would slightly favor abolishing basic transcription and using either common transcription (when applicable) or strict transliteration (if no common transcription exists) in all Wikipedia articles. However, I am hesitant because I do realize that Wikipedia is supposed to be a general use encyclopedia, and that making text harder to read has important consequences for accessibility and inclusion (e.g., there are many people with relatively poor reading skills, and we should do everything we can not to exclude them).

  But of course, a discussion about WP's basic transcription system would belong at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Arabic. Here, we are to discuss the requested move based on the existing guidelines (mainly WP:TITLE and WP:MOSAR) and the existing usage on WP more broadly. This mainly consists in looking at what reliable sources are doing. In that context, the main question is whether Arba'een qualifies as a common transcription per WP:MOSAR, i.e. one used by an overwhelming number of reliable sources (not just a majority, but rather something like 80–90%). If not, the existing guidelines clearly point to Arba'in, a transcription used throughout WP and one which most closely resembles the most commonly used transcription in reliable sources, though simplified to fit WP's general reading public. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Support: as the default basic transliteration most suitable for the page title per WP:MOSAR, as well as the more prevalent transliteration of forty in general, and the wiktionary version, and due to it being roughly equally common on Google scholar as Arbaeen or Arba'een, so unobstructed from that perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Though on a side note, would "Ziyarat al-Araba'in" be more precise? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.