Talk:Abdul Razak Hussein

disambiguation

There are so many other individuals named some variation of "Abdul Razak" that it would be a big improvement if this guy's article was moved to a less ambiguous name. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Yk (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Since the name of the subject is "Abdul Razak", I propose a move to Abdul Razak or Abdul Razak (politician), as the titles of articles should not include honorifics. Telco (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct. From WP:NCP: "Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", "Mrs" etc. are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien)." In this case, Abdul Razak is pretty much universally known, especially in Malaysia, as "Tun Abdul Razak". "Abdul Razak" is an exceptionally common Muslim name; we should not hesitate to disambiguate away from it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a misinterpretation of WP:NCP. If a person is best known as "Dr Livingston" does not mean that it would justify titling the article as such. I agree that Abdul Razak is a common name, and therefore Abdul Razak (politician) seems to be a more appropriate title than the inclusion of a honorific in the article title. If this is not acceptable to you, then the article can be renamed Abdul Razak Hussein. Even Elizabeth II is not referred to as "Queen Elizabeth II" on her biography article. Telco (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't misinterpret NCP. I gave you the exact quote from it. I'll do it again: "unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known". That is plainly applicable here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a notice board where we can expect to get neutral third party opinion on this? Telco (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You can request a move discussion at WP:RM. But note from the thread above that this has been discussed before. I should add that Abdul Razak (politician) runs into the same ambiguities. Just within Malaysia there is Azizan Abdul Razak. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How about Abdul Razak Hussein then? That is pretty specific. Telco (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not the relevant common name. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Mahatma Gandhi" is the commonly used name for an Indian independence leader, however, his article is titled "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" (former FA), chiefly because "Mahatma" is an honorific. Telco (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So what. We also have Mother Teresa. And Tun Abdul Razak. Analogies are rarely helpful. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Consensus was to move. Consensus was unclear for including Hussein. Since that was proposed I went with it. If anyone thinks that there would be consensus to remove that, feel free to renominate for an additional discussion. Or probably better, try and establish a consensus on this page first. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Tun Abdul Razak → Abdul Razak Hussein – because the word "Tun" is an honorific. See Malay styles and titles. Telco (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this proposal is a bit more reasonable. I'm still a bit uncomforably: the addition of "Hussein" is hardly his common name. However, on the other hand, it does bring it more into line with other former PMs, none of whom have the "Tun" honorific. Also, Najib Tun Razak was successfully moved to Najib Razak.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see where you're coming from, but this should be an exception. The subject is widely known by the title as it stands. — Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 18:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Like I said before, "Tun" is an honorific that is rather common amongst Malay nobility, and it would be a terrible precedent if we allow that to stand in the title of a Wikipedia article. It does not make sense to compare Abdul Razak Hussein with Mother Teresa, whose real name was not known by most at all. Telco (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Tun" is not a common honorific, nor is it a title given to the nobility. "Tunku", "Tengku" are a princely titles; "Dato/Datuk" are honorifics conferred by state rulers to commoners rather commonly; "Tun" is a rare honorific conferred by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia) only to commoners considered esteemed enough by the government. Somewhat like the Order of the Garter, there can only be around 25 living people having the title "Tun". Based on many sources, "Tun Abdul Razak" is so common that an exception can be made to the rule. — Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 23:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right about the usage of the title, I read this differently: Malay titles#Tun. However, there is a serious problem when it becomes common to cite WP:COMMONNAME to warrant the use of an honorific the article name. Not that it would really matter, but even the Bahasa Melayu Wikipedia has an article titled ms:Abdul Razak Hussein Telco (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New lead image

a colour image from 1961

Hello, so I found this colour image of Abdul Razak Hussein in 1961 during his visit to White House, in which he was still the DPM. So I would like to ask if this could be the new lead image, thank you. DelawareMatt (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

MPAJA plot to kidnap the Sultan Abu Bakar

Some rather dubious sources from blogspot and readers digest. In the original publication, Red Star Over Malaysia, it is stated that the Wataniah guerillas informed Force 136 that they feared that the MPAJA might fall into communist hands. There is no mention of an actual communist plot or any mention that Abdul Razak was involved in this. See page 171. 58.84.137.108 (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)