Talk:Abd Allah ibn Abd al Muttalib

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents 1 change 2 revert 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.2 Discussion

[edit] change

Striver, you changed the title in such a way that you lost the 'ayin' characters. no doubt there are several ways to transliterate the Arabic, using Abdu'l-Muttalib or `Abd al-Muttalib, but Abd-al-Muttalib is not correct by any standard. If you don't fix it I'll go back to the old version. Cuñado - Talk 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page. Cuñado - Talk 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cunado19, nobody cares about the aynd, not in Ali, not in A'isha not nowhere. Please change the page back. --Striver 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the MOS. If does not have a primary transliteration (basically common enough to be considered English) then it doesn't need to follow any standard. If there is primary then it is standardized. I doubt that `Abdu'llah ibn `Abdu'l-Muttalib is a common household name. If you can find 70% of references writing it as Abd-al-Muttalib then you're welcome to change it. Cuñado - Talk 23:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You want 70? That is 350 out of 500? Ok, lets see: Your version: one hit, my version: 506 hits. that makes it 506 out of 507 Can you change it back now? --Striver 00:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Abdullah ibn Abdul-Muttalib: 188 hits

Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Muttalib: 504 hits

Abdullah ibn Abdul Mutalib: 17 hits

Or just for Abdu'l-Muttalib, Abdul Muttalib 48,100 hits

Abd al-Muttalib 45,800 hits

Abdel Muttalib 894 hits

Abdul Mutalib 40,200 hits

Abd al-Mutalib 186 hits

Abdel Mutalib 2,750 hits

The rule is not that whatever version gets the most hits wins, it's that if there is no primary transliteration, then a standard version should be used. It also states that web searches are a poor way to check. For an article that is supposed to be academic, it irritates me to use sloppy transliteration. Considering that the 'ayin' characters look a little ackward, we could replace them with the ‘ ’ characters maybe? Cuñado - Talk 06:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revert

Im reverting the name per this --Striver 08:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I could'nt. can a admin do it? --Striver 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What? Why is it getting moved? Striver, we have been fighting over page titles for months. Why are you against everything I do? Cuñado - Talk 09:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not personal, and its not only me, we just think its a bad idea. I know it is more accurate, but it is ugly. --Striver 01:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I already commented on that poll. That doesn't mean you can go around changing anything with authority. Your proposal is wrong. It should be Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Muttalib. Do not change it to your proposal which is completely wrong. Learn how to use the dashes. Read the MOS. Cuñado - Talk 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just look at ‘Abdu’llah (name): most people named Abdullah have those ticks in the articles' titles. Let's be consistent. --tyomitch 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to Striver, I'm the one who recently changed all those articles. Cuñado - Talk 04:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, then this is the other way around. Neither Ali (name) or Umar (name) or Abd-al-Rahman (name) or whatever other names starting in `ayn have the tick in titles. Just the two exceptions are ‘Abdu’l-Hamid (name) and ‘Abdu’llah (name), both edited by Cuñado. --tyomitch 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And to be fair to me, Abd-al-Rahman (name) was created by Striver. For this argument, referencing other wikipedia pages is very irrelevant. Just as we don't use them for referencing information. Do you have any experience, information, or preference? Cuñado - Talk 06:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference would be Abdu-llah bin Abd-ul-Muttalib and Abd-ur-Rahman, respectively. (That would highlight Abdullah being two Arabic words, rather than one.) But I'm putting consistency over preferences here, because currently each page in Wikipedia seems to follow its own interpretation of the MOS. At least to me, the current inconsistency is more annoying than any particular way of transliteration.

As for experience, I've just been processing Category:Articles needing Arabic script for quite a while now, and I've encountered more ways of transliterating Arabic in Wikipedia than I can remember. People are getting particularly creative with diacritics, and the troublesome letters like ض or ظ end up as the most obscure diacritic characters, almost as obscure to a layman as the Arabic characters themselves. Thus, I'd rather limit the strict transliteration to one occurrence in the lead paragraph, avoiding it completely in both the article body and title.

I didn't yet get into a debate on pecularities of tranliteration, however. So, I'm new to this seemingly old feud between Striver and you. Are there any other participants that I'm unaware of? --tyomitch 07:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support now. The title ‘Abdu’llah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib is inconsistent even with itself: how come the hamzat-ul-wasl of Allah is assimilated in ‘Abdu’llah, but the one of ibn is not?
  The other downside of the current title is that it presents ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib as being split into ‘Abdu’l and Muttalib, rather than (correctly) into ‘Abd and al-Muttalib --tyomitch 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of people insisting on Arabic when they have no idea what they're doing. If you want Wikipedia to look like a bunch of idiots are running things, then just leave this page as its current title of Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib, because that is not correct to anybody on earth. To answer your questions, Allah is a contraction of al-Ilah, and the hyphen is always omitted, it's just done that way. It does begin with an alif under a hamza, which is always omitted when written without a preceding word, but always included when combined with the previous word. The noun `Abd, plus the definite nominative marker "u", plus the second element, Allah, the beginning hamza of which is elided by the preceding "u". We get... `Abdu'llah. But in the case of al-Muttalib, the hyphen is not omitted. All the same grammar rules follow, which brings us to `Abdu'l-Muttalib. Put a "son of" in there and we get `Abdu'llah ibn `Abdu'l-Muttalib. If you follow the ALA-LC standard of not assimilating the nominative marker "u" (the way it's pronounced), then you have option number 2: `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. Outside of these, you're making up your own version, despite the efforts of thousands of academics over the last two centuries.

Hey, both ibn and al-Muttalib begin with exactly the same letter alif-with-hamza-of-joining. I have absolutely no idea why the former gets rendered as "i" and the latter as "'". Care to explain? --tyomitch 08:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to correct the name, be my guest. I've run into too many people that have no clue what they're doing and sit there and argue and revert. I'm done watching this page for awhile. Cuñado - Talk 05:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I did revert your cut-and-paste move just because it's not the proper way of doing page moves; see WP:CPMV --tyomitch 08:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move