Talk:Ka'b al-Ahbar

Only Shia allegations and sources

I just went through the article and read the references which are clearly from Shia perspectives like Al-Islam.org a notoriously pro Shia site. 82.132.224.213 (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable

IP (82.132.241.176) added the tag. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

One vague Jewish source and a host of unreliable Shia references stop edit warring Emir. 82.132.241.176 (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between a vauge source and a unreliable sources. What hose of unreliable references are there, Shia or otherwise. If you don't want an edit war to start then don't make any more edits and just suggest them here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Could the IP be the same as above? Both have 82.132 at the beginning. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced information.

@ShaniAli1lo: Please discuss why you want to remove the information. Keep in mind WP:OSE and that what is on other articles is irrelevant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

That sourced information has been heavily refuted in the body of the text. A misleading attempt to paint him as the developer of Sunni traditions. Plus like Abdullah Ibn Saba which is a related article several sources state he is from the Shia school of thought but this is censored due to sectarian agendas and editors like Emir only riasing voices against Sunni editors. Hence I will always remove it. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: Where has that information been refuted in the text body heavily or otherwise? What happens on Abdullah ibn Saba' is not relevant as per WP:OSE. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Your either playing dumb or just are a editor with an agenda. Read the intro the jewish sources also refute the rabbi who claims he started the Sunni tradition. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@ShaniAli1lo: I am not playing dumb. You are correct that I have an agenda, it is to make this article follow the guidelines of Wikipedia to the best of my ability. The sources refute the claim that he started the Sunni tradition, as in he didn't found it. Just because he was the founder doesn't mean he wasn't a follower. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop sending me pointless warnings and read the dam intro stop being such a drama queen. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: My warnings are not pointless. You stop being a drama queen. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This page is also a biography of a person and hence his alleged and may I repeat ALLEGED sunni faith is not supposed to be here. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: If it is reported by the reliable sources then we can include it. Doesn't matter if it is the biography of a dead person or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Refutes about his alleged influence on Sunni thought

A jewish author from Yale disputes his sunni influences and suggests they are a legends used to refute Islam and Quran and another source suggests he had little influence on Sunni thought only a jewish rabbi and another source state he influenced Sunni thought NONE state explicitly that he was a Sunni muslim. It is thus undue and not neutral to mislead on infoboxes of a persons biography.ShaniAli1lo (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: We can remove the bit about him being Sunni then and just include the bit about him being Muslim. Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:NEUTRAL before using those words here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Calling him Muslim would eradicate the sectarian tone of the edit implying he was Sunni was sectarian in my view due to the tone of the article. Just add muslim thanks. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Mati' and Mani'

I can understand why some confuse Mati' and Mani'. The two words are so similar in Arabic language writing مانع and ماتع. The only differece between them is one dot that some people might count it two dots (if there is a printing issue). Mani is the right one per all of RS in Arabic.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not completely sure about his name!! I know that his name is Mani' مانع from some Arabic books. I also know that the name Mani' is common in rural areas of Yemen. While Mati' means "wait" in Arabic SharabSalam (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Rums

Hi Pathawi, First of all, when you get reverted you should start a discussion per WP:BRD otherwise your edits are disruptive . I didn't understand your rationale for removing the quote "Rums" from Ka'b. The word was quoted in the source which is "History of Al-Tabari" and you think that Rums is not needed. Why? Your personal feeling--SharabSalam (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, SharabSalam. I think that start-a-discussion knife cuts both ways, but I'm glad you did. I've included my reasons in my edits, but I'm happy to restate them here, plus more: The word روم in Arabic absolutely derives from Latin Roma, sure (probably by way of Greek), but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to always translate it as 'Romans'. In modern English, 'Romans' is never used to refer to the Byzantines. If we were working from the Arabic source text, in which the word روم is used, I'd still insist that the appropriate English translation here is 'Byzantines'—I don't think the historical fact of this is under dispute. (You agree that the people in question are the Byzantine Empire, right?) 'Rūm' means nothing in English & isn't really relevant. Calling them 'Romans' would distort the meaning & mislead readers. But there are two additional reasons: First, this is presented as indirect reported speech, not as a direct quote. (I know it's direct reported speech in al-Ṭabari, but not in the wording here.) That takes away any reason to use the Arabic terminology. Second, the person who wrote this section didn't cite the Arabic original: They cited the English translation. In the English translation in question, the word used is 'Byzantines'. (Rūm is given parenthetically, as the translator does in multiple locations where he wants to be clear about his translation choices.) I hope that's all clear. Pathawi (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: I just don't think 'Rums' is a word in English, except to refer to varieties of an alcoholic beverage. Pathawi (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Pathawi, the passage was like this "Rums" (Byzantine). The word Rums was inside a quote as a direct quotation from Ka'b Al-Ahbar I don't know whether Ka'b Al-Ahbar was referring to Byzantines or not but the word Rums should be presented. Another thing is that the translation of الروم is Romans and البيزنطييين is Byzantines. So Rums doesn't actually mean Byzantine although it is interpreted in that context as Byzantines.

If a word is not in English we can italicise it. It doesn't have to be English.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Also in this edit summary you said "Rums" is a well-understood word. Then if it's a well-understood word then why it doesn't mean Romans, that's the well-known, well-understood translation of the word. That's why both words should be presented (the word that Ka'b used and the word that was interpreted). There is an Arabic well-understood word for the word Byzantines which is البيزنطييين. If anyone who speaks Arabic, saw that it is in Wikipedia "Byzantine" he would probably change it to Romans that's if he knows what Ka'b said. In order to make it clear and obvious we need the word in Arabic to be presented that's why the editor put it there. To avoid confusion. So basically your claim that it is well-understood is actually not true.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with most of the things you're saying, & I think you misread my edit summary (I definitely would not say that "Rums" is a well-understood word: I think anyone who reads history in Arabic & is fluent in English will know that روم, here, means Byzantines). However, instead of debating, I think I have a solution which might work for both of us: What if we say: "for the Byzantines (Rūm) had recaptured the city." Will that work for you? It would address my concerns, & it would reflect the wording of the translation. Pathawi (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just don't think that removing Rum was a good idea.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't understand what you think it adds: I don't think there's a historian alive who reads Arabic & English who would dispute that identification, & I don't think that the Anglophone reader gains any meaningful knowledge. But we're both fine with the resolution, so I've made the change.

For what it's worth: I've been looking at the original source, & I'm likely to make more changes. I won't take that translation identification out. Pathawi (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)