Talk:Ibn al-Nadim

message: From the encyclopedia of Islam: , 
His name was IBN al-NADIM, fullname Abu 'l-Faradh Muhammad b. Abi Ya'qub Ishaq al-Warraq al-Baghdadi. 
Jidan 23:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what most sources say, the full name according to most sources, was "Abu'l-Faraj Muhammad bin Ishaq al-Warraq":
* The Abbasid Caliphate in Equilibrium, by Clifford Edmund Bosworth (339)
* Mediaeval Isma'ili History and Thought, by Farhad Daftary (Page 302)
* The Isma'ilis: Their History and Doctrines, by Farhad Daftary (Page 729)
* The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran, by T M Green (Page 218)
--ManiF 23:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The al-Baghdadi was a title he got because he was from baghdad. Jidan 23:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the problem, it's not clear where he was born. He worked in Baghdad though. --ManiF 23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibn al-nadim 

message: Sorry, but this voice seems practically equal to the lemma "Ibn al-Nadim" readable on Encyclopaedia of Islam. In it:Wikipedia the translation of this voice was today erased. --Cloj (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyviol

message: *  Standard translation: Bayard Dodge, The Fihrist - a 10th Century AD Survey of Islamic Culture 
*  Google books: "Nadim Fihrist -wikipedia"  916;  "Nadim Fehrest -wikipedia"  21
*  Google: "Nadim Fihrist -wikipedia"  10,400;  "Nadim Fehrest -wikipedia"  275
WP policy is to use the primary transcription, when it exists.
According to WP:MOSAR, "A word has a primary transcription (anglicization) if at least 75% of all references in English use the same transcription".
In this case, with 98% of English-language sources using "Fihrist", there clearly is a standard anglicization.  Persian nationalism is not an acceptable reason to go against that.  
-- Jheald (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've flagged this dispute at WT:ARAB.  Jheald (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. The word is persian, but your reason comes from the WP:MOSAR which helps those who want to know what is the transliteration of arabic words. we look at this WP:PMOS. 2. Iranica uses what we proposed.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: WP:PMOS defers to WP:EN, where the first principle is: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name".  Jheald (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. The book was written in arabic but the word "pehrest" and the author are not. So how do you transliterate it? Moreover Eir uses the transliteration "Fehrest". Also both versions, your new one and the stable one are given so what is the matter?--Xashaiar (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The difference between "Fihrist" and "Fehrest" is just a matter of transliteration. For transliteration of Classic Arabic, only the first one is common. For transliteration of Classic Persian, both are common among the scholars (Iranica uses one scheme and Encyclopedia of Islam uses the other one). No matter what transliteration scheme we use, it should be self-consistent, so "Kitab al-Fehrest" is wrong (because it is a mixture of two different transliteration schemes). It should be either "Ketab al-Fehrest" or "Kitab al-Fihrist". Among these two, "Kitab al-Fihrist" is much more common. Alefbe (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fihrist or Fehrest ? 

message: Obviously, the arabic version of the name is by far the most commonly used in English sources. On the other hand, the Encylopedia Iranica mentions Walter Henning citing a secondary source (Borhān-e Qāṭe) which to me suggests that Fehrest / Pehrest is the original title. As far as the article is concerned, the current version seems to be suitable, although the arabic spelling of the book needs to be given in the first paragraph as well as in the subsection as it is now - for example, "He is famous as the author of the Kitab al-Fehrest (arabic: Kitab al-Fihrist)". It should be noted though that encylopedias are regarded as tertiary sources (see WP:PSTS) and while these are generally suitable as references, a secondary source such as the one cited by the Iranica would be better (if an online version can be found, that is). 
I would like to mention two things about the guidelines being cited in this discussion. Firstly WP:EN only refers to the title of an article, not the content of the article itself - if we were to write one on the book itself, then it would have to use Fihrist. Secondly, WP:PMOS (and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Persian)) were proposals/guidelines which gained no consensus. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between "Fihrist" and "Fehrest" is just a matter of transliteration. For transliteration of Classic Arabic, only the first one is common. For transliteration of Classic Persian, both are common among the scholars (Iranica uses one scheme and Encyclopedia of Islam uses the other one). No matter what transliteration scheme we use, it should be self-consistent, so "Kitab al-Fehrest" is wrong (because it is a mixture of two different transliteration schemes). It should be either "Ketab al-Fehrest" or "Kitab al-Fihrist". Among these two, "Kitab al-Fihrist" is much more common. Alefbe (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: The second and third paragraphs of the "Biography" section is copied from: . Not sure what to do about it. Wiqi(55) 00:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: Ibn al-Nadim wrote that Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi had a Chinese student who was fluent and literate in Arabic, and to whom he dictated the works of Galen to. The student wrote down everyhing he said in a cursive form of Chinese writing.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lNXZGQVdz_gC&pg=PA219#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=jqb7L-pKCV8C&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.physique48.org/serv/razi.htm
http://www.nooonbooks.com/media/downloadable/files/links/2/5/pages/25058/OPS/Text/chapter-012.xml
http://arabic.tebyan.net/newmobile.aspx?PageSize=1&PageIndex=19&LANGUAGE=2&BOOKID=77257&PID=31143
http://www.مجتمعي.com/books/almaktabah/الفهرست-صفحة21
http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/3355_فهرست-ابن-النديم-ابن-النديم-البغدادي/الصفحة_26
http://lib.ahlolbait.com/parvan/resource/37631/c/8147/get/?doPID=&dsPID=ma26&mimeType=text/html&mimeType=text/html
http://rabat.unesco.org/majaliss/article.php3?id_article=4319
http://al-hakawati.net/arabic/civilizations/book15a1.asp
http://repos1.alpheios.net/exist/rest/db/xq/alpheios-get-ref.xq?inv=grecoarabic-inv&urn=urn:cts:greekLang:perseus0001.perseus001.alpheios-text-ara1:16
http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/exist/rest/db/xq/alpheios-get-ref.xq?inv=grecoarabic-inv&urn=urn:cts:greekLang:perseus0001.perseus001.alpheios-text-ara1:16
http://ar.edulibs.org/كيف-احسب-عمري-بالطريقة-الصينية/
http://ar.edulibs.org/get_paper.php?id=9481
Rajmaan (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibn al-Nadim's account of al-Razi's Chinese student 

message: In the "Ibn al-Nadim" article here, it says that "Ibn al-Nadīm (Arabic: ابن النديم‎; died 17 September 995 or 998) was a 10th-century Arab".
But then it says (under Biography), "... al-Nadim.... Probably born in Baghdad ca. 320/932 he died there on Wednesday, 20th of Shaʿban A.H. 380."
The following falls in between – without a verb – further confusing the article: "'Al-Nadim' (النَّدِيم), 'the Court Companion' and 'al-Warrāq (الْوَرَّاق) 'the copyist of manuscripts'."
Now that I am thinking about it, I presume these years are CE/AD vs. Islamic-calendar years reckoning; but that is not readily accessible by a reader. I don't know the Wikipedia preferred method of writing the latter years.
Can someone who does please fix this? (I didn't check the rest of the article for other such dates.)
Misty MH (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused datings (995, 998, 320/932, 380).