Talk:Suleiman

message: In addition, I mark unknown suleimans (i.e., those who don't fit any ones in Suleiman (disambiguation)) by Suleiman (.) in texts. mikka (t) 01:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's unacceptable. The good news is that that is not a page title (and never has been), and that only two articles have that lk at this time. The bad news is that it doesn't carry users directly to the Dab as lks to unidentified topics should (nor even indirectly, except for users savvy enough to inspect its what-links-here). I created Suleiman (tea) for one of them (for the time being), and left the other lk'd to the dab, since AFAI can see our articles deny his existence.  Someone who knows something about the history should improve that.--Jerzy•t 03:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

message: User:Mukadderat's edit raises a simple problem and several more complex ones.
# The simple one is failure to grasp WP:MOSDAB: if King Solomon is to have a lk on the Dab page, it should have its own entry as well. (The exact solution depends on further issues.)
# Mukadderat is correct that i should not have added "Solomon" to the list spellings following the  Dab title: Solomon redirects elsewhere, and needs no mention in the lead.
# The MOS aside, subordination of Solomon to Sulayman is superficially self-explanatory: users looking under any spelling that rdrs to this Dab are much more likely to be looking for the Quranic account than the Bibical one. Nevertheless, the purpose of a Dab is to serve all the topics that can validly be named by the unDab'd potential title, and besides being standard transliterations of the Quranic name for Sulayman, they are also Arabic spellings of the Biblical name for King Solomon.  
# However! Solomon and Sulayman are both names for one (historical or legendary or mythical) figure, and the differing approaches (mine, Mukadderat's, and no doubt others') to providing access to the articles via the Dab page are really confused responses to the misnaming of the articles. Neither Sulayman nor King Solomon covers the topic of the figure who bears both names. That figure is best known in English as Solomon (rather than Shlomo or Sulayman), so Solomon (or Solomon (ancient) or some other dab'd form) should be a target of Suleiman (disambiguation) (and of Solomon (disambiguation)), rather than either of the current bearers of Sulayman and King Solomon.  A good accurate title for what is now Sulayman is Koranic account of Sulayman, and, for what is now King Solomon, Biblical account of King Solomon.  Accordingly, i'm moving them both, and making Solomon (ancient) a stub that (for now) consists mostly of references to those two scriptural-account articles and to Secular evidence on Solomon.
# The entry i propose for this figure is:
#* Sulayman, Arabic name of Solomon (ancient) (fl. perhaps c. 1000 BC), religious leader described in both Koran and Hebrew scriptures
Jerzy•t 05:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just linked Solomon (disambiguation) and other transliterations of Suleiman in the lead, despite what you mentioned above.  Because Suleiman is a catch-all transliteration from the Arabic, I believe it's important to mention that 1) there are a large number of transliterations (which is itself highly relevant to the topic "Suleiman"), and 2) there are additional dab pages where people may need to look to find the content they desire.  Though those pages don't merit merging, they do merit early mention so as not to be lost hidden way below in the See Also section without sound explanation of why they should be seen. Elatb (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solomon 

message: The article begins "Suleiman is a common Jewish surname and is the main transliteration of the Arabic سليمان Sulaymān / Silimān."  Would it be more proper to reword it to say something like "..is the Arabic form of the name Solomon"?  I know that there are Arabic Jews but I wouldnt think there'd be enough of them to make Suleiman "a common Jewish surname".  Certainly not worth mentioning in the article even before mentioning that it was Arabic.  Ive only seen this surname for Muslims. —Soap— 04:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Was introduced in 659338709 without clear explanation after being reverted previously. I restored the original text. — Earwig talk 07:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish? 

message: Suleiman and its alternate spellings is an Arabic Origin Name. Its origin is not in Hebrew. The Hebrew origin name is Shlomo. It is also the standard Hebrew name. Suleiman is a cognate of it, not derived from it. This is because both names are within the Semitic language family. So the same language family will share cognates. 
Whomever Keeps reverting it to the name being “a Hebrew Origin name” is falsifying information deliberately which is uncalled for. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suleiman is an Arabic Origin Name