Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Entry Naming

  • There is a straw poll on the naming of the Mecca/Makkah article at talk:Mecca. 6 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)


[edit] Names

Ok, i hate it when people mutilate articles names like this: ‘Abdu’llah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib. I want it like this Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib. I do not care how the "underlying Arabic" is writen, i want clear-cut English, without damn dots and stuff all over the place. Who agrees?

  • Support --Striver 23:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    So quick to the straw poll, eh? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Aminz 23:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Smooth Henry 03:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree Cuñado - Talk 09:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. as Cunado. Poppypetty 21:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree Arabic Pilot 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It also goes along with the searching problem there is. If all the diacritics aren't typed in, you can't find the article ... really annoying. Lincher 13:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The proper pronunciation can be written in the article. Most of the time users are searching for items, and it's a pain, rather than having redirects, deal with the correct spelling in the opening of the article.--Tigeroo 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This already exists at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). I'm going to remove the {{proposed}} template since the page has been around for several months and no changes have been made for two months. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are no "dots and stuff". Using markers for the hamza and ayin is common in any scholarly publication. Ignoring them makes it look sloppy. According to the MOS it should be `Abdu'llah ibn `Abdu'l-Muttalib, but those markings look a little funny so I replaced them with turned commas. I just brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic). Besides that, Striver, you are using a completely wrong form of transliteration with the dashes in the wrong places. Another proper way of writing it would be `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. But either way it should have markers for the ayin. Cuñado - Talk 09:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And why is that? Why do we need to know about the ayn? How does it benefit me to know about them? --Striver 00:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The first two things that come to my mind: pronunciation, and disambiguation. The ayin is pronounced differently. If you use a standard of transliteration then someone can not only pronounce the word correctly, but can obtain the original Arabic if necessary. Scholarly references that know what they're doing do not omit it.[1][2] A good question is, why do you oppose it so much? It looks sloppy to use ten different standards of spelling Arabic names. In this case, you seem to have made up your own standard, using Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib. Cuñado - Talk 04:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not a scholar in this issue, and i can only talk for myself: I do not care about "obtain the original Arabic if necessary". Not the least. And i hate to see all the... stuff! I dont even know what they are called, only that they do not occur in normal English text. I view "Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib" as supperior since it clearly shows to the english eye what the name is and what the surname is. X ibn Y. --Striver 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
btw, "'Ali" and "Ali" is pronunce exactly the same, its just a bothering to see the damn thingy before the name. --Striver 19:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Striver, you say that you are not a scholar in this area, so that gives you little experience and room to talk. I actually understand Arabic, and yes, 'Ali and Ali are different, due to the time-lapse from the previous word. In essence, Arabic stores a lot more information about the pronunciation of a word in it's normal lettering, as Cuñado said, having to do with hamza and sukoon (sorry Cuñado, but ayn is translated as "A"). Reguardless of it being easy for the English reader, it's closer to the real pronunciation, and more suited to a site like Wikipedia. Doesn't that count? (This is just my take on the situation.) Arabic Pilot 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
In my view: No. I dont care. And yes, i did say i am not a scholar in this field to make clear were i sstand and how much credesense should be given to my opinion. But i hold one anyhow, and it is: I dont care about how the Arabic is. Have some Arabic correct tranliteration in some sectino of the article, but dont spread it all over the place. --Striver 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well now, remember what Wikipedia was created for. It is an online encyclopedia. Encyclopedias, dictionaries, any kind of reference material like that...none of them are built to be easy to use, they're built to be definitive, and correct. The fact that it is more correct with the quotation marks was the original reason why they were put there. Plus, with this many articles with Arabic names, is it really worth it to go back and change all of them? Surely it isn't so difficult to read the names with the markings. Also, do you have any defense for the "Ali and 'Ali are pronounced exactly the same" statement you made as yet? Please don't tell us how Arabic is pronounced unless you yourself have studied how to pronounce it.Arabic Pilot 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No need to change anything, i brought it up because some users are starting to do what i opposed. The correct tranliteration can be given once in the article lead, introduction or etymology section. I have never met a English speaker that sees Ali, pronounces it, then sees 'Ali and thinks AHA! It hase this stuff thingy, better to pronounce it differently!. The english eye can not see the difference between 'Umar and Umar, its the same thing, just the one with the ' being more... strange. --Striver 10:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree - this is an encyclopedia and accurate transliteration (with the implied pronunciatiun) should be indicated for words and names that are not common in English. The following question is mainly directed at Arabic Pilot: I'm not sure if Muhammad should get the same treatment - thoughts ? MP (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Oh, hey MP, sorry i was off for a bit. I'm not sure what you mean though about Muhammad, could you be a little more specific?
  • Comment. What good is it if you cannot find it in a search. I say place the correction and pronunciation in the article opening line. --Tigeroo 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Go for the easiest guys. -- Szvest 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support BhaiSaab talk 22:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia must be comprehensible to laymen; therefore, we must avoid phonetical transliteration outside articles related to linguistics. Pecher Talk 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree- According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic): "There is no single most-popular transliteration for the Holy Book of Islam. "Quran", "Koran", and "Coran" are all common, so the standard transliteration of Qur'an is used." If it is wiki guildlines to write "Qur'an" and not "Quran", then we should do the same for all other transliterations.Starwarp2k2 00:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the ' is needed when it makes a pronounciation difference, like in Qur'an and Shi'a, but not in 'Ali and 'Umar. --Striver 00:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't say I am familiar with the nuances of Arabic, but is Ali not pronouced differently than 'Ali?Starwarp2k2 01:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference? --Striver 01:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't know enough Arabic to say. But I was under the impression that 'Ali is prounced with a throat "a" sound, while Ali is pronounced with a regular "a" sound. Although I can't give you any specific examples, I do know that there are some words where such a small difference in pronunciation completely alters the meaning of the word. Maybe the best parallel I can come up with for such a phenomenon is French/English: résumé/resumeStarwarp2k2 02:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So you are basicly saying that only arab-speaking wikipedians would know the difference? That is my main motivation for not including them in the first place, except for in the etymolgy section were a comprehensive explanation can be given. --Striver 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, only Arabic speaking wikipedians would know the difference between the meaning of the right pronunciation, and the meaning of the wrong pronunciation. If, by eliminating the "'", the pronunciation changes at all, there is a decent chance that people who don't know Arabic will walk away thinking a word means one thing, when in actually it means something else. By eliminating the "'"s, I think you are making wikipedia transliterations accurate only for those who speak and are knowledgable of Arabic.Starwarp2k2 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
To Striver, yes you are correct when you say that only Arabic-speaking Wikipedians would know the difference between the two forms, but think of it: the regular, English-speaking Wikipedian should be able to approximate it, and come very close: all they would be missing is a glottal sound. That kills 2 birds with one stone: definitively correct, and understandable to most people. It's sort of like me walking through all the English articles and changing "k" to "c" and vice-versa, what you want to do with the Arabic names, if that's a good analogy. And to everyone posting their troubles on searching for the name and being blocked because of the marks, simply by putting the non-diacritic version next to the correct one in parenthesis, even only once, in the articles, the search should show it. By the way, have any of you ever actually searched for a name, and later found it was blocked because of diacritics? Just curious. Arabic Pilot 00:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Poll

This seems to not have passed. BhaiSaab talk 19:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure what counts as passed. It looks to me as if the "supports" exceeded the "disagrees." Also, here is a further thought -- it doesn't seem to be assumed that words and names coming from French/German, etc. should have their exact pronunciation given (if such a thing as an exact pronunciation exists). Why then should it be assumed for Arabic? A general encyclopedia is not the same thing as a specialized academic encyclopedia. Transliteration here is to give a general idea of how one would say a word/phrase/name. Yes, we need to avoid such standard barbarisms as "sheek" instead of "shaykh" for a tribal leader, but for the vast majority of native users English(es) who are not Arabic speakers, giving diacritics to distinguish between sounds that are not phonemic in English actually isn't useful-- these are diacritical marks for sound differences that the non-Arabic speaker may not even be able to hear or even imagine (given they are non-phonemic in English), much less be able to say. Giving the correct written Arabic makes sense to me and a standard transliteration, keeping in mind that MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) may be a nice idea, but the actuality of pronunciation is highly variable--- and the acceptance of MSA is not as wide-spread as one might think (except perhaps for students learning Arabic who then find it doesn't help them talk with folks out on the street of whatever part of the Arab world they happen to be in). My university students speak the Khaleeji/Gulf dialect and to them trying to learn MSA is like learning a different language entirely and something they are highly resistant to. Even their renderings of their own names from Arabic into English are highly variable. For example, almost none of them indicate the 'ayn in any way other than as an "a". One student today told me that only one person in her entire family indicates the 'ayn in their family name -- they know few non-native Arabic speakers can say it anyway so find it gets in the way. I'm sure they see attempts of profs to say a ghayn as hilarious, with kaf as a close second -- most with ghayn in their name opt to spell it in English with just a "g" or an "r" , since it sits somewhere between the two phonetically. I don't see us bothered about trying to get the exact pronunciation of the rolled "r" in French or the gutteral "r" in German people/place names, which is the closest parallel sound. We also don't get exercised about whether the English is pronounced consistently from user to user -- whether someone reads "schedule" with a /sh/ or a /sk/ isn't a big issue. Perhaps relaxing a bit makes sense -- Arabs generally are wonderfully kind and generous, granting non-native speakers of Arabic considerable latitude in pronunciation. Wikipedia is not a specialized encyclopedia calling for in-depth knowledge of the subtleties of any language. Too much information can get in the way of the understanding of a general reader, which is the audience to which a general encyclopedia aims. Cyg-nifier 18:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ayin

It seems like nobody here actually realizes that there is a difference in pronunciation between `A and A. The ayin is a gutteral A. Example: Abu does not have an ayin, so `Abu is not correct. `Ali does have an ayin, so it is pronounced with a gutteral A. If you pronounce it Ali, it is not correct. If you listen to native Arabic speakers you will hear the difference when they say `Ali. And please note that the mark for the ayin is (should be) different from the Hamza. All the forms of Arabic transliteration distinguish between the two. There are three options for each...

turned comma ​ grave accent/apostrophe half ring
Ayin ﻉ ‘ ` ʿ
Hamza ﺀ ’ ' ʾ

It's a distinction that every professional publisher uses, including Britanica and the news media. Personally, I don't have a preference among the three options, but to use nothing is incorrect. I arbitrarily chose the turned comma form to use because I think it looks the best. If we can agree on something I'll update the Arabic MOS. Cuñado - Talk 17:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Singling out the ayin is wrong, as there are lots of other phonetical nuances in Arabic that cannot be properly transliterated using the standard Roman alphabet. In order to transliterate Arabic correctly, we must use the full-fledged phonetical transliteration, but it will make articles too difficult to read to most people. Pecher Talk 19:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The information that Cunado19 added is valuable, but it will not be conveyed to 99.5% of the native english readers by adding stuff, it needs to be explained in pronunciation section, preferebly in the etymology section. --Striver 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Man, i have seen people add straigh dashes ON the "i", you know like "-" ON a "i". I do not know HOW to do that, i do not know WHAT it means, nor do i care. I do NOT whant that in article names and NOT in the article either, EXCEPT for the etymolgy section. --Striver 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree That (ī) simply means it is a long vowel. Like the "i" in "fire", not the "i" in "silk". I want words to be transliterated as accurately and precisely as possible. If you don't like it and want to "keep it simple", then don't come to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for accuracy and correctness; it is an encyclopedia. I see this as no different than an article on Albatrosses saying that they "are large seabirds allied to the procellariids, storm-petrels and diving-petrels in the order Procellariiformes (the tubenoses)." and not "are big seabirds that are related to pretrels and tube noses". When deciding between a technical term and a simpler term, the technical term should always trump the simpler term, provided an explanation of the technical term is available. And reguarding this issue, as long as the transliteration of Arabic to English is explained, and the diacritics identified, then they must be used for accuracy. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, please, please read the Arabic MOS. I am not proposing to use dashes and dots in article titles. I never have, and neither does the MOS.
Striver, there is a second argument that seems to be tangled up in this. We need to distinguish between the two. One is the existence of a character for the ayin. The other is whether to use phonetic transliteration or not. Example: `Abdu'llah or `Abd Allah. According to the MOS, they are both proper, and it's really up to preference, because they both hold all the information of the original Arabic. You have been suggesting two distinctly different issues, both of which I oppose. You are suggesting to use the non-phonetic transliteration (not a huge deal), and you are also suggesting to completely drop the markings for the ayin and hamza (a huge deal). Please don't confuse the issues. Cuñado - Talk 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Im not confusing them. Having a phonetic tranliteration makes a article close to unreadable, look how sombody mutilated "Nikāħu l-Mutˤ", its beyond me what that is supposed to be. As for the second issue, "completely drop the markings for the ayin and hamza", i am also proposing that, only including ' when it really makes a difference in the english language, that is, included it in Shi'a and Qur'an, but not in 'ali and 'umar.--Striver 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The mark in Shi‘ah is for an ayin, and the mark in Qur’an is for a hamza. There is a difference in pronounciation between the the two. If it were Shi’ah (with a hamza) then there would be an abrupt pause between the two syllables. However it's not a hamza, and the syllables flow together with a deep gutteral A in the second. Is this starting to make sense? If we use an apostrophe for the hamza, then we use an accent ` for the ayin. I'm proposing to use the turned comma and typed apostrophe ‘ ’ (conveniently located on the clickable insert tab).
I don't even know why we're arguing any more. You obviously don't understand how it works, and the MOS is clear that the ayin and hamza should always be included. Cuñado - Talk 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, are basicly back to the top of this page, ‘Abdu’llah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib vs Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib. And the voters are divided. This MOS has no less authority than the MOS you mentioned. --Striver 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, stop confusing the issues. If you want to use ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib then I wouldn't be making such a big deal about it. You are doing three different things: dropping the ayin, using non-phonetic spelling, and adding dashes that shouldn't be there. Cuñado - Talk 19:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I could live with Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Muttalib. But i do prefer dashes after "abd" to clearify that it is a part of the same name, in the same way that they are added after "al". --Striver 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no standard out there which would put a dash there. When it comes down to it you're just making up your own way of doing it, and that will never fly. The dash only goes between the definite article (al) and the word it precedes. There is an exception for Allah. Cuñado - Talk 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

i think that the Wikipedia standard should -- as an encyclopaedia -- conform to the standard set my the International Journal of Middle East Studies (IJMES), the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), and the third (forthcoming) edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI). these represent the international standard for transliteration of arabic into latin letters and represent the clearest and most systematic method of conveying the arabic in english. this includes indicating `Ayin as opposed to hamza (` vs ') and using diacritics for the long letters. for example, writing 'khalid' leaves it ambiguous as to whether it is khālid (خالد) or khalīd (خليد). and without question, the kind of spelling often seen in uneducated and unprofessional texts, such as 'khaleed' or 'saleem' is completely inappropriate for wikipedia, since those spellings are completely subjective and differ based upon national origin (for example, french spellings would never say 'ee', that dipthong only exists in english). dgl 02:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New poll

As this poll didn't come to any conclusion. I started a new issue on the Arabic MOS talk page. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic)#poll for standard transliteration.

Even if you disagree with my suggestions, I would appreciate as many people as possible contributing. Please read over the issues and avoid knee-jerk conclusions. Cuñado - Talk 02:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My view

Regardin Cunados:

It seems like nobody here actually realizes that there is a difference in pronunciation between `A and A. The ayin is a gutteral A. Example: Abu does not have an ayin, so `Abu is not correct. `Ali does have an ayin, so it is pronounced with a gutteral A. If you pronounce it Ali, it is not correct. If you listen to native Arabic speakers you will hear the difference when they say `Ali. And please note that the mark for the ayin is (should be) different from the Hamza. All the forms of Arabic transliteration distinguish between the two. There are three options for each...

I understand the arguement, and it is valid. But i prefere other aspects.

  • First, it is true that Arabs pronounce Abu and Ali differently, but enlish speakers do not. That is simply since the gutteral A does not even exist in the english vocabulary.
  • Even if it did exist, this is not the proper way to convey the difference. It requires of the casual english read to understand Arabic gramar and pronuciasions to be able to decipher what the "Abdülâziz" is supposed to mean. The best solution is to have an "etymology" section were the issue of arabic gramar and pronunciasion can be presented in depth in each individual article
  • It looks plain ungly to write "Nikāħu l-Mutˤa" instead of "Nikah Mut'ah". This should not ever be done to the article title or the general article text. This should be restricted to a in depth writen "etymology" section.
  • I present this quote: The MSA ones are the ones that are funky. The transliteration systems used herein have been used on other pages and represent a non-English based system (i.e. u with a long mark rather than the Anglicised "oo". Ie, adding stuff is simply not english! You will not learn that in enliglish clas - because it's not enlgish.
  • I object to all reperesentation of hamza, ayin or long vowel marks and the like, on the pure basis that it is not english.
  • The only thing that i do support is adding a ' like in "Mut'ah" or "istam'tatum", and i understand that practice to be english.

--Striver 10:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with your suggestions. It's clear to me that you're speaking from ignorance, because first of all, the MOS and editors have never proposed using "Nikāħu l-Mutˤa" as an article title. In fact the character of ˤ is not part of any proposal to be used on Wikipedia, and using diacritics over letters is only supposed to be used once in the etymology section. The issue of using Abdülâziz is because that is the modern standard Turkish form of transliteration, since it was a Turkish name. If it were Arabic transliteration it would be `Abd al-`Aziz or `Abdu'l-`Aziz. Also, you wrote Nikah Mut'ah. The apostrophe represents a hamza, and that letter in Arabic is not a hamza, it is an `ayin. They are completely different, and I don't understand why you keep ignoring that fact. The title should be Nikah Mut`ah. Someone unfamiliar with what those represent will not notice the difference anyway, and will pronounce it the same both ways. And your suggestion of completely dropping any kind of standard would result in a half-assed attempt to spell any article. You even muddle it up by saying that you sometimes support an apostrophe here and there, but you are inconsistent in applying your sloppy transliteration. This is all a dead-end conversation, because there are already well established standards set by orientalists, academics, the UN, the Library of Congress, the FBI, the Arab League... and the MOS has already gained a consensus over many months by many editors who all agree (except for you) that a standard form of transliteration is necessary and important for an academic encyclopedia. Cuñado - Talk 08:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, then i dropp the topic. --Striver 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)