Talk:Ibn Baz

Creed - updated

I'm so sorry, opened discussion "Creed", I got confused and thought it's Ashari, but it's Athari, which is different. My apologies, astagfirullah 212.47.136.111 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. I see no oppose. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baz → Ibn BazIbn Baz - WP:COMMONNAME. He is commonly known simply as Ibn Baz rather than his full name Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baz. See the Google Scholar 2,710 results [Ibn Baz] whereas only 403 results for Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz or 186 results for Abdul Aziz ibn Baz or any variants. Ibn Baz is also consistent with Salafi-related people such as Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Jibrin etc. Ibn Baz is also the article title for this figure in the Arabic Wikipedia. Zindikika (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Skitash (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I had the same thought a few weeks ago. Although, Query which is more WP:COMMONNAME: Ibn Baz or Bin Baz? I thought the latter was a little more prevalent in English language sources. DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  The following results show "Ibn Baz" is more prevalent than "Bin Baz":

  • Brill Publishers: "Ibn Baz" 200 results - "Bin Baz" 83 results
  • JSTOR: "Ibn Baz" 360 results - "Bin Baz" 296 results
  • Google Ngrams results also gives a significant lead to "Ibn Baz" over "Bin Baz."

  And "Ibn" is more common than "Bin" in Islam-related articles, examples I cited above. Zindikika (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Firstly, your last point is irrelevant. What other articles do comes under WP:OTHERCONTENT. But more importantly, your seaches aren't valid. You've dragged in results with his full name in the "Ibn Baz" results. For example, your Brill results for Ibn Baz includes "chapter 4 of Dār al-Islām versus Dār al-Kufr: Reinventing Traditional Binaries" by Sarah Albrech because of the quote Template:Tq and that's not surprising given that "ibn Baz is more "authentic" than "Bin Baz" but that's not the test for English language WP:COMMONNAME. This scholarly piece by Frank E. Vogel is typical of English language sources in referring to him as Bin Baz when not including his full name. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  I can also list loads of academic works using Ibn Bāz such as Alexander Thurston's Salafism in Nigeria, Atawneh's Wahhābī Islam Facing the Challenges of Modernity e.g. And how is my last point irrelevant? The Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles states: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.". There's not a single Salafi-related or Islam-related or even Arab-related article title "Bin ...." but thousands of titled "Ibn ....", which is linguistically correct as well. And if my JSTOR and Brill searches aren't valid, the Ngrams are. They do show a clear lead for "Ibn Baz" rather than "Bin Baz". Zindikika (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

But that's because, for whatever reason, "Bin" isn't usually used for those other people, unlike Bin Baz. I don't think I've ever seen "Bin Taymiyya" for instance. Consistency with other "Salafist" articles is a very weak argument. Is that the set that there should be consistency with? Why not Grand Muftis, Saudi leaders or Arab muslim clerics generally? As I say above I support "Ibn Baz" I'm just testing whether Bin Baz is better. Oh, and no "Arab-related article"? That's a big claim. I can think of at least one without even looking: Bin Laden family. DeCausa (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Zindikika, don't remove Wahhabi from the Infobox without first gaining WP:CONSENSUS. It's sourced. I've reverted you. DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Np, I might start a discussion regarding this later on. Zindikika (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Nominator is a sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. C F A 💬 13:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose WP:BANREVERT applies. It is a useful RM and could be left to run if all agree. DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone can close a RM created in violation of a block as "procedural close". I just left this one because there is considerable support. No opinion on the actual move, though this LTA has a long history of disruptive moves and move requests. C F A 💬 23:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Wahhabism"

Ibn Baz has never claimed to be a "Wahhabi" nor is it an actual school of thought. Ibn Baz as well as his students and teachers ascribe to the Salafi movement and to the Athari creed. IsmaelGh97 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It's cited to a reliable source. Do not remove it again unless there is WP:CONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)