Talk:Al-Tabari

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 3 February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Jarir tabari.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Jarir Tabari.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Dear Herr Beethoven:  I don't understand who has empowered you to decide what is and what is not constructive in the Wikipedia al-Tabari article, and thence to control the contributions of others.  For your information, present-day  scholarship notes al-Tabari's conspicuous errors; by removing this fact, you are misleading the reader.  
Please retain my emendation to the article, or I will rectify the matter through Google.  Sincerely,     74.162.153.99 (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What you wrote may very well be true. However, you need to cite your sources for anything that could be challenged. Otherwise we can't tell whether or not it is really true. Herr Beethoven (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herr Beethoven's removal of my improvement of the Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari article in Wikipedia (10 July 2012) 

message: I thought that they say "At-Tabari", the L changed to a T because the next word starts with that consonant. You also see that with other letters, such as in these examples :
*As-salam, such as in the "As-salamu alaykum" greeting
*At-Tawbah, the 9th sūrah of the Qur'an,
*Ar-Ra'd, the 13th sūrah,
*An-Nahl, the 16th,
*As-Sajda, the 32nd,
*Az-Zumar, the 39th
*As-Safir, a former newspaper in Lebanon ; As-Safira, a city in Syria
*At-Tuwani, a Palestinian village
So "At-Tabari" should also appear in bold chars in the introductory sentence (perhaps replacing "Al-Tabari" altogether?). —Jerome Potts (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See Sun and moon letters - it’s not as straightforward as when it’s followed by a consonant. But I don’t believe the spelling in Arabic changes anyway - it’s only the way it’s pronounced. As noted in that article the convention normally followed when transliterating a name of a person into Latin script is to maintain the Al. Google books gives 200k returns for “Al Tabari” and 90k returns for “At Tabari”. I would say it’s not necessary to give both versions - which (AFAIK) is the norm for articles with Arabic names on English WP. DeCausa (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for this explanation and pointer, which led me to Arabic definite article#The lām in al-.—Jerome Potts (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Al-Tabari" 

message: I think this is a similar case like Al-Farabi. Removing ethnicity from the lead and expanding the Biography would be a good solution. Wario-Man talk 06:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally disagree. I think the way it is written now is clear and in accordance with what is stated in the sources provided. It is clear that whomever provided the sources originally never actually read carefully through them and I have yet to see any strong arguments against the way it is written now. The recent edits were all based on personal knowledge. Moor9119 (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about being well-writen or well-sourced. The lead section is a summary of the whole article. When some stuff are uncertain/disputed or there is no consensus in the references and scholars' works, we better move those stuff to the body of article and expand/clarify the relevant section(s). Since I never really involved myself in contributing to this article, I ping other editors who are involved in the recent edits on this article.  Your thoughts? Wario-Man talk 06:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Wario-Man. Per WP:LEAD, whether he’s of Arab or Persian ethnic origin is important why? There seems to be some editors exercised by that debate but it appears to me (at least) to be an esoteric rabbit hole of little interest, and certainly not enough for the lead. The fact that he’s Iranian is good enough there. Discussion on his deeper family origins is better suited for the main body of the article. And Moor9119, whether it’s well written and well sourced is not the question. It’s where in the article those well-written well sourced words should appear in order to comply with WP:LEAD. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it helps in explaining "Iranian", which can be misconstrued as an ethnic claim. Al-Farabi doesn't have that problem. Wiqi(55) 12:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:ETHNICITY: “ Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.” Don’t think it is in this case.DeCausa (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  MOS:ETHNICITY also applies to "Iranian", so we should get rid of that too, right? We already have "from Amol, Tabaristan (modern Mazandaran Province of Iran)" which is factual and doesn't imply any ethnic connotations. Wiqi(55) 15:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Iranian" is a national identification (not an ethnic identifier), but as it's a modern country, I don't see any issue with removing this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Agree with DeCausa.--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Iranian can most certainly be an ethnic designator as well, and that meaning is certainly the first one that comes to my mind when used in pre-modern contexts. In fact, if we are to treat it as a nationality in this context, that raises a plethora of questions about many Central Asian figures (just to give one example, consider Imam Bukhari: would we list him as an ethnic Tajik or an Uzbek by nationality? Neither: he's "Persian" for our purposes).  Eliminating mention of Iran almost entirely also smells suspiciously of the usual Arab-washing of Islamic history. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  To be honest, I don't understand why whether he was Persian or Arab is important either. I have found all of this to be a good exercise in learning about the rules of Wikipedia and also in learning about how western scholars view Islamic history. Certainly, ethnicity seems to be overly emphasized on Wikipedia which makes the existence of MOS:ETHNICITY a little confusing to me. I guess this is because personally I have always understood that notability of important figures in early Islamic history almost always stems from how that person was involved with someone with authority like some governor or some school, rather than with some united ethnic (or national) group. But, I guess I have to keep navigating around to make more sense of English Wikipedia articles. Moor9119 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve gone ahead and boldly moved the Iranian/Persian/Arab reference out of the lead into the Biography section to comply with MOS:ETHNICITY. DeCausa (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

text:   Also, there is no such thing such thing as the 'usual Arab washing.' If people choose to read Islamic history away from ethnic considerations when ethnic backgrounds didn't dictate what happened, and it so happened that the people being studied used only Arabic in their writings and had Arabic names, that doesn't mean Arabs now are trying hard to 'Arab-wash' the history of Islam. This is simply false. Moor9119 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entitled to your opinion. I think it's pretty obvious why people are trying to rebrand the Muslim Golden Age as the "Arab Golden Age", and why people have been spreading the lie for centuries that Iran never truly accepted Islam because they couldn't tolerate Arab domination, etc. There's a difference between simply using Arabic names and actively denying that non-Arabs ever contributed to Islam, and I run into the latter on a near-daily basis. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

text:   Feel free to correct people when they state something which is wrong. No need to make such general statements. Unless you are into history, you are bound to think of every muslim as Arab. It is hard to make the distinction without serious study to be honest. Nothing being organized here to deny anyone anything. Moor9119 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, what? Either you worded that poorly or you are terribly, terribly wrong. Over 80 percent of Muslims today are non-Arab. Knowing that doesn't require any knowledge of history at all, and yet I run into Arabs all the time who are unable to wrap their head around the fact that I'm proudly Muslim yet have zero interest in belonging to their ethnicity or culture. This is exactly the problem: somehow they seem incapable of imagining how little of a connection there is between their ethnic identity and the religion that they happen to follow, and so we are gaslighted and denied us our importance in the ummah through dogwhistles like "history" and "[requires] serious study" (compare, for example, my local Muslim Student Association, which said Persia and Central Asia would be "too advanced" of a topic for a talk but had no qualms covering the openly Arab supremacist Umayyads; coincidence? I think not). Also, want to declare your alternative account? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is all irrelevant to the main discussion of the how the Al-Tabari article should be written. I have nothing to add with regards to the recent edit, so I will respectfully not reply to your statements here. Moor9119 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving his origin/background from the lead section to Biography 

message: User:Moor9119, User:Xerxes1985, User:شاه عباس - This is the article talk page, and is where to discuss edits.  Edit summaries are not a satisfactory alternative to discussion on an article talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Al-Tabari]] Is an Article Talk Page 

message: Is Tabari really an Athari? Do these theological schools even exist during Tabari's life-time? Somewhere in the article, Tabari appears to be distinguished by Hanbalites (Atharis?) for his "heretic" beliefs. So are the source properly understood citing him an "Athari"? 2A01:C23:895A:A900:7D46:18B5:309A:E62D (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athari? 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images 

message: Almost all of the sources of this article says he was of Iranian or Persian origin on what basis said here he was an Arab? Alihd23 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity  

message: some of the changes you made in :
Good:
*Deleting "Iranian" from short description
*Deleting "polymath" from occupations
*Deleting "seventh-century": obvious mistake; however, it should've been changed to the correct form, not removed.
*Changing "Qur’ān" to "Quran"
Mistakes:
*Changing "traditionist" to "traditionalist": two separate words; traditionist is a translation of muhaddith and traditionalist is a translation of Athari.
*Deleting details such as "Sunni"
*Deleting legitimate occupations: four or five isn't "too many"; there are several articles that already list more than that. Al-Tabari is well-known for his theology and jurisprudence and was active in those fields, so I see no reason it should be failed to mentioned as his occupation.
*Deleting links in the introduction: why? Every single article has these linked in this place.
*Replacing Arabic/Islamic links with general ones: again, why? Al-Tabari literally worked in those exact fields and we have articles for them. I don't see why we should get rid of it and link to a general article.
*Changing the definite article -al to always be capitalized: read WP:Manual of Style/Arabic.
*Changing the name of Qur'an Tabari.jpg: wrecked the image.
*Removing quotation around a source: direct copy of the source and not paraphrased, so it must have quotations.
*Adding romanization of books in introduction: unneeded clutter and against Wikipedia's style; again, see the MOS.
Overall, this isn't an improvement; yet, now you've reverted to an older version with no explanation. Yasinzayd (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes