Talk:Ibn Taymiyya

message: This page is WP:TOOLONG. The floor is open to brainstorming as to the best ways to potentially trim, or - more efficaciously, if possible - WP:SPLIT off some amenable sub-sections of the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: :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. Proposed move was unopposed in this discussion and a rationale was provided with new information that addresses issues brought up by individuals who opposed moving the page in a prior discussion.   — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ibn Taymiyyah →  – So I ironically opposed this a year ago is the RM above this on the page, due in part to what I thought was the stricter transliteration at the time. However, Wikipedia's in-house default transliteration, per WP:MOSAR, did not actually support my argument at the time, and does not take a clear stand, but it does give "al-Qahira" and "al-Qaeda" as examples of usages that simplify the final taa marbouta in the exact same manner - and simplicity is something that can also be argued for from the perspective of concision, naturalness and recognizability, together with consistency with the likes of Ibn Battuta, which has the same final letter. In addition to this, we have the aforementioned arguments about actual prevalence, including no 'h' being more common on Ngrams, and marginally more common in Google Scholar, with 16k+ hits to 13k+ hits. In addition to this, a book search for both spellings throws up "Ibn Tamiyya" more prominently, not least in the 2019 work Ibn Taymiyya by Jon Hoover, a notable specialist who is referenced extensively on the page, as well as the 2015 Ibn Taymiyya and His Times by Rapoport and Ahmed (also referenced extensively on the page). We then have the 2020 work Ibn Taymiyyah on Reason and Revelation and the 2018 The Biography of Ibn Taymiyya. Overall, the trend seems more than sufficient to move the page given the seeming lean towards dropping the 'h' seen in Wikipedia's in-house transliteration style. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 August 2023 

message: The English and Arabic pages of Ibn Taymiyya are structured differently:
•   The English page is organized as follows: Name, Overview, Early years, Life as a scholar, Involvement in the Mongol invasions, Imprisonment on charges of anthropomorphism, Life in Egypt, Return to Damascus and later years, Death, Students, Legacy, Influences, Views, Contemporary influence, Modern reception, Works. 
•   The Arabic is organized as follows: Beginnings, Biography, Methodology, Jurisprudential and doctrinal opinions, Positions, impact on his time, Extension of its influence, Opinions and positions about him, His writings.
The Arabic page is better in these regards:
•   Overview is not found in the Arabic page. Indeed, it seems to be superfluous. The preliminary introduction already serves as an overview. I think it should be removed entirely.
•   Life as a scholar, Involvement in the Mongol invasions, Imprisonment on charges of anthropomorphism, Life in Egypt, Return to Damascus and later years, and Death are subsections under Biography in the Arabic page, which seems to be more rational. In fact, I think Early years/Beginnings should also be under Biography. 
•   Impact on his time, extension of its influence, Opinions and positions about him are clearer titles than Legacy, Contemporary influence, and Modern reception. The synonymous nature of the previous sections resulted in large overlap between them. They should be titled clearly as Impact in his time, Contemporary influence, and Opinions about him.
The English page is better in these regards:
•   The Arabic page includes Name (Lineage) under Beginnings (Early years). I think the separation by the English page is better, because they're arguably unrelated.
•   I think the Arabic distinction between Methodology, Jurisprudential and doctrinal opinions, Positions is entirely unclear, and if there is any, they should be subsections under Views.
•   The Arabic page includes Students under Impact on his time. I think the separation by the English page is better, because him having an impact on his students is not necessary. Dinomar2000 (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniting the structure of the English and Arabic pages 

message: the citations should be moved from the lead into the body as per MOS:LEADCITE, except for anything controversial. also, the citations listed next to the word "judge" are actually citations for him being a philosopher. Yasinzayd (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations in lead 

message: Why is the Views section completely blank with merely a link to another article? Rather, shouldn't at least some of Ibn Taymiyyah's views be summarised on here? 
Also, in my view the age should be added back in the transliteration of his name, as the Arabic letter ة is found at the end of it - Taymiyyah is the name of his female ancestor, and it ة is found at the end of grammatically feminine names and words. The feminine ending is shown with the "-h" in English transliteration. (contribs) אב דהן (talkpage) 17:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views of Ibn Taymiyyah - article's section completely blank?