Talk:Madawi al-Rasheed
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Madawi Al-Rasheed → Madawi al-Rasheed – There is an unfinished discussion at the MOS/Arabic talk page regarding al- versus Al- in Arabic "family" names. One problem is ambiguity regarding the original Arabic: is it the definite article "the"="al-"="ال" or rather the dynastic "House of"=""آل"/"أهل"? Madawi al-Rasheed is apparently descended from a dynasty, but the Arabic version of her blog looks like it uses the definite article, not the dynastic word. On the other hand, she is based in London, and clearly favours "Al-" for the latin version of her name, but does not appear to call herself Princess Madawi, so she does not seem to claim the dynastic "Al/Ahl". Does Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic#Definite_article override personal usage? An analogy would be someone called Sir John Andrew The Smith, who tends to use capitalised "The" in his name. Should we override his preference because our guidelines state that the definite article is "always" lower case and recommend avoiding honorifics, i.e. should we move his entry to John Andrew the Smith instead ("Sir" is not the issue here, but illustrates that there are exceptions to following WP:COMMON usage)? I'm not fully convinced that the answer is yes, but i'm proposing the move in order to see if more people wish to participate and if a consensus can emerge. Boud (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support: Her last name in normal Arabic usage doesn't contain (Al = آل) but rather the definite article (ال). Yazan (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Dynasty?
editIs she related to the Rashidi dynasty? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Categories
editHi @User:Smasongarrison, what did you mean by "non-diffusing"? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking! Non-diffusing subcategories are ones were the page can also be found in the parent category. Most gendered categories are non-diffusing WP:CATGENDER, so Saudi Arabian women writers belong in both the category about women writers and the main category about Saudi Arabian writers. Otherwise, only men would remain in the writers category, isolating women to just the "women writers". You can read more about it here: WP:FINALRUNG, but effectively "a person should not be categorized only by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability, without also being placed in other more general categories... the person should be left in the un-gendered parent category alongside the gendered subcategory until some other relevant sub-categorization criterion is in place." Mason (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @User:Smasongarrison, makes sense, thanks for explaining! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome! And again, thank you for asking :) Mason (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @User:Smasongarrison, makes sense, thanks for explaining! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)