Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Clergy

message: (transfered from main page)
I would like to post a proposal for the format of naming Muslim clergy. I would like to either create a separate page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Islamic clergy), or post it here. My proposal is that Muslim clergy such as Ayatollahs go with their titles, just like Western clergy. For ayatollahs use the format (Grand) Ayatollah {name} {surname}. For example use Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and not Ali al-Sistani, and Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi and not Mohammad Yazdi. Gryffindor 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't mean to sound combative, but what is the purpose of this? Are there a lot of cases where ambiguity would exist without adding the title? You say "just like Western clergy", but my perusal of :Category:Bishops (or, rather, subcategories of it) indicates that very few bishops have "bishop" in the title of their articles. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it's ok for Cardinals to have their name, but not ayatollahs? I am not saying every Islamic clergy should be with their titles, but the highest ones, like in the Christian cases. Gryffindor 13:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't been aware of that situation before now, but, no, I don't think it's okay (although I've been inconsistent on the matter in the past). I don't know how it has been justified thus far. I'm not aware of any accepted principle by which Wikipedia would use titles for people especially if they are high-ranking.  [added:] Okay, I have since located and read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy). The argument there seems to be that "Cardinal" is not a title but becomes part of the cardinal's name. I don't know whether I find this entirely convincing, but it is, in any case, not an argument in favour of including a title. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Gryffindor that there appears to be a bit of inconsistency at present and we would benefit from having an agreed convention AndrewRT - Talk 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Examples at the moment:
* Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani
* Sayed Muhsin al-Hakim
* Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim
* Ali Khamenei
* Ayatollah Kazem Shariatmadari
* Seyyed Husayn Borujerdi
(full list at :Category:Ayatollahs
The closest comparison is with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy). This policy, is illustrated by examples Pope John Paul I, Patriarch Nikon, Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, Archbishop Damaskinos of Jaffa, (Saint) Augustine of Hippo, (Venerable) Bede although if you look at :Category:Italian cardinals you find even this agreed convention is not always used.
As a general rule administrative roles - Pope, Patriarch etc - are included in their title whereas honors - Saint, Venerable - are not. I understand from the article Ayatollah and other places that the title is equivalent in rank to Archbishop and has some administrative functions. Therefore I am inclined to support using the format (Grand) Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.AndrewRT - Talk 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The highest-ranking mullah in Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is also the highest-ranking murderer in charge of Iran's military.--Patchouli 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: For consistency with everything else in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) --Striver 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post at WP:RM Patstuarttalk|edits 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rename