Talk:Jesus in Islam/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Further discussion on title

There is lot of discussion and a lot is written in favour and against the present title. Please forget that this English or Arabi or Urdu encyclopedia and also forget that it is for christian or Muslim or Judism base people.Any encyclopedia is encyclopedia meant to educate people from any language from any religion. It is in different languages as every body don't know every language and there should be some media available to every one. As english

• is a language known to majority of person ,
• is best one to communicte between masses thrugh out the world,
• Vast variety of topic and knowledge available through this language as majority of people can communicate through this,so they contribute to it.

Because of these advantage En Wikipedia is most succesful as it further claimed to be being neutral site,free to all, editable by all, operative in democratic mode. To make it more successful these criteria should be realy honoured in true sense. No language barrier no religion barrier should come in it's way ,only aim should better content and it's material should be easily locatable to it's reader,every body should be allowed to add genuine material to it,let it be not in perfect english as majority of world people are not English and they cannot be perfect.let them put the material and ,other should help them in improving the articles to keep Wiki standard.

Let us come to main agenda the Title of this article, If one agree to my above feelings about Wiki, he should also agree that Jesus is common to humanity and everybody has right to know about him. If an ordinary muslim ( not expert in english) wants to know how Wiki feels about his Isa nabi ,he will not search for 'Jesus' but start with 'Isa'. When Wiki is so democratic and so neutral that it allowed a separate article on Jesus for Islam, the fellow should have easy reach. when he reach to 'Isa', he will further tempted to go to 'Jesus' and will know much more.

It is my humble request that to make Wiki more powerful ,wiki of all ,it would be better if Titles are made more user freindly rather than language/ religion friendly .

Considering above Title Isa( Jesus) seems more suitable as it convey meaning to English as islamic view of jesus, an ordinary men who know Jesus with Isa will reach to article both Isa as well as Jesus. --Md iet (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many muslim websites that state Jesus rather than Isa. Lets keep it in one language. If someone enters Isa they can reach to the same page provided a redirect is created. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Per MOS:ISLAM Arabic terms should be translated into standard English wherever possible without compromising the meaning of the text. For example, "Allah" should be translated as "God". I think that is clear to me that we should use Jesus, not Isa or Eysa. We are talking about the same person here, no? Also, I think WP:ENGLISH applies. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew is 100% right. The MOS clearly advocates using Jesus rather than Isa here. Moreover, Md, your argument "Please forget that this English or Arabi or Urdu encyclopedia" shows ignorace of WP policies. The English encyclopedia is meant for English speakers. Article titles are based on common usage in English. And this issue has been discussed a number of times before, as you can see from this thread and in the archives. There has never been consensus to move it away from Jesus towards Isa. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear,Thanks for kind response,

Arabic terms should be translated into standard English wherever possible without compromising the meaning of the text".Dear Andrew,'Isa' is not a Arabic term it is a name which half of the world (let it be Muslim,Hindu, Sikh, Jain) know of a pios person of god, they call it as "Isa Masih" , only well educated fellow know him by name Jesus.As now web facility is common in English and most of article is available in English,to have easy access to material ,even a common man also go for English and try to get best out of it."Isa" name is faith cannot be translated just as other words, and this logic doesn't apply here.

'The English encyclopedia is meant for English speakers',Dear Carl,please have a broader sense in understanding the policies.Definitely English encylopedia can not be read by person who doesn't know some English,but policy never say that it is meant for a group of people and not for others. It always want that a lot many people get advantage from it. It will get improved by it self, if variety of people read it and contribute to it, As English provide a common platform Wiki will never keep reader away from it. As far as standard of English is concerned ,there are many well wisher available,which can always improve the article and make best presentation of it as per repute of Wiki.I am not expert in Wiki policy and also very new to it,but every body will agree to my this feelings.Policies are meant for improvement and better keeping ,it can't be hindrence .

My move for change of title was spontaneous.I came to know about history on change later and not guided by policies but it was basicaly due to improvement factor only.When main article is available with 'Jesus',and Wiki has kind enough to provide separate article for other group, than it should also think for the proper use of this separate article.Redirect as suggested by 'Peaceworld' can be created immediately,and let us agree for "Isa(Jesus)"( or better suggestion involving name 'Isa') title for the help of more than 50 % of world,Thanks again,--Md iet (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Dear all, Hope,my above feelings,views are acceptable . With concensus of you all, we can change the title,let it "Isa (Jesus of Islam )"? Thanks,--Md iet (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view it should be 'Jesus in Islam' - because this is English Wiki. Peaceworld111 (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For example "Islamic history: A Very Short Introduction" Adam J. Silverstein (published by Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-954572-8) uses only a name Jesus, not Isa. Peltimikko (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Peaceworld view was dt.24 Aug 2010, and after that lot of discussion is recorded and my final suggestion was on 26th ,after that there was no further suggestion or dispute recorded,hence on 29th presuming consensus, heading was changed. There is no edit war, no forceful editing and democratic way & improvement should be acceptable.

The book refered by Peltimikko is I think written for mostly academic use and reffered by elite group which know Isa by name Jesus, still I am sure that it must be accepted in the book that Jesus is known by all Islam as Isa,which is such a fact that no body can deny. I am very surprised to see that why So much hitch then in giving the user freindly heading, which is designed and allocated for that purpose that group.

Unnecessary threatening given for edit barring,which Wiki policy never encourage for genuine editor,which even allow 3 forceful editing within 24 hours,wheras in this case complete discussion is taking place in democratic manner,and after more than 3 days , further edit is done and that with due previous permission asked and justification given.

Intervention from true well wisher ,real policy maker would be helpful if the true nature of wiki ,as it claims is to be maintained for it's real growth.--Md iet (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please maintain that as said by several other users that this is intended for the English speaking people, and how many muslims in the world know English? ...and those that do most of them will know that Jesus refers to Isa. Moreover, how many non-muslim english speakers know that Isa refers to Jesus? Heading such as Isa (Jesus in Islam) is just inconsistant and disorganised - in that 1000s of articles would need heading editing as there will always be a minorty English speakers who know that particular heading by another name in a different language, culture etc. Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Peaceworld fear of unnecessary editing for minority purpose is well questioned. This thing is only to be ascertained or to be main criteria for edit. It's effective use to how much % of reader and whether 'heading' justify to the content of article and whether it is user friendly should be the main criteria. If the things are checked in broader prospective then no. would reduce from 1000s to few.

Now come to specific question ,comments mentioned by “Peaceworld” on the subject: 'Wiki is intended for English speaking people' . Let us analyze the statement. Does it mean that world Wiki should be used by only people who use English as their speaking media, I think not. It wants to be used by all the person who know some English to read and has access of media. If you agree with this then there is huge scope of reader in third world and world's large chunk of population will be covered in the grade.

Let us first find how many total people in world know Jesus By name Isa by their tradition, All the Muslim people, All Hindu people as in Hindu tradition Jesus is called by name “Isa Masih” and Christian are called “Isai”, all other cast and religion people in south Asia ,as their base is not English ,and they all know Jesus by Isa.

Total Muslim in world- +1800 million

Total Hindu in world- +8- 900 million

Total world population 6800 million

Only Hindu and Muslim are making 40 % of world population, As other cast of South Asia are not included ,total more than 40 % of people know Jesus as Isa by the way of their religion and tradition.

As per overall literacy figure 0f 53 % for Muslim World wide and 65 % For Hindu ,and over all literacy world wide of 85%:

Literate world- 58 Billion, muslim- 10 Billion, Hindu- 6 Billion .

Hence about 27.5 % of world literate population know Jesus By Isa, which is a very high percentage. As primary schooling is also counted in literacy criteria, and most of Muslim and Hindu of densely populated Asia region are of that category and they know working English, as it is now taught from primary schooling itself. As now media is fast reaching to common ordinary people , they try to access that through their primary English, as web information is easily available through Google etc., and vast material in English .

As higher education % is not so high, we can take 20 % out 27.5 % figure as literate person world wide who most probably know Jesus by the name of Isa only and not by Jesus, but still has the ability to access English encyclopedia through Web.

Hope above analysis with figures taken from web are sufficient to answer all question raised by Dear Peaceworld, and 20 % ,about 12 Billion people has right to know about their Isa through Wiki, and Wiki being neutral, democratic, free to all can not deny it, and shell not deny it for it’s own betterment, I suppose. Heading such as Isa (Jesus of Islam) would be just consistant and organised. Please add for valuable suggestions.--Md iet (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ in Islam by Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions. The Wordsworth. 1992. p. 262. ISBN 1-85326-354-0.

In case there is no further suggestions ,it may be treated as consensus arrived,and next move can be of title change please.--Md iet (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No consensus. No movement. Peltimikko (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Without justification ,just denying consensus,can not be accepted if Wiki claims it as neutral.Just refering that '"Islamic history: A Very Short Introduction" Adam J. Silverstein (published by Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-954572-8) uses only a name Jesus, not Isa, does not deny the fact that 12 Billion know the Jesus by only Name "Isa", and they have all the right to access Wiki ,and have a title of their name,if a separte article is created for them. Provide justification please,before denying movement.--Md iet (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Those muslims and hindus that know a little bit of English will also know that Jesus refers to Isla. But those 'Western'English speaking population will not know that Isa refers to Jesus. Also, all your population figures are wrong. Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"The muslims and hindus that know a little bit of English will also know that Jesus refers to Isa" seems too optimistic statement ,as those fellow has only primary eduction and they just know how to read simple english.But Western'English speaking population will know that Isa refers to Jesus,as there is main article named as Jesus,and when they refer for islamic view,then they will automatically move to Isa(Jesus of Islam) without knowing Isa, and title itself will make them clear that Isa is another name of Jesus. But poor primary english speaking fellow will never reach to Neither English 'Jesus' or his 'Isa' ,if proper title are not available.

All the population figures are taken from Web and approximated to give a overall view,I will provide sources and exact figures,just declaring figures wrong by you seems not appropriate.

Dear Peaceworld, now I think you are discussing only for the sake of discussion denying just thing,which is pretty crystal clear.Please think positive,it is not thing that If in the Title some common name is put some viewer will win a battle, but in the process we will give better opportunity to those Wiki viewer.Wiki is not just meant for "Western'English speaking population", as I suppose you feel, but If Wiki want to be truely global,neutral,democratic,free, editable by all and want to improve itself ,this type of suggestion to be accepted by open heart, keeping all other things side by.Hope All Wiki well wisher would agree to it and accept the move.--Md iet (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Population figure 2008;

Total ; 6695 million,Muslim --1627 million.Hindu 885 million,Source;http://www.mamandram.org/tools/world-hindu-population.html/, http://www.islamicpopulation.com/world_general.html/, --Md iet (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope the exact population figures provided and further view discussed is agreeable to all as there is no further comments on title change.

Conversion from million figures to billion figure were wrong,but it make hardly any differece as percentage figures would remain same and 20 % population is quite a lot ,to justify the point.

I further agree with view point expressed in the next section named as "Christian Centric" . There is article "Jesus" already available which is christian eccentric, and in that islamic view points section is already included and can be further strengthen by providing some actual information about what is said and done by Jesus in the Koran some Moslem viewpoints.

This article can be for "Isa" known by a major chunk of people and title "Isa ( Jesus of Islam )" would be best suitable,as I suppose ,as there is no further suggestion.

Hope ,there would not be any further comments,if in next move title is changed.--Md iet (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Page move :

I like how nobody actually wanted the page moved except Md iet, but he moved it anyway on the grounds that it was "thoroughly discussed". Can somebody undo this, please?—Chowbok ☠ 04:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it. I think at one point move undos had to be done by admins.—Chowbok ☠ 04:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

when all the justification are given in favour,all the reply given and there is no counter given against it even after lapse of sufficient period.How come move can be undone without any further reasoning.Admin may pl. interfere if Wiki realy feel itself neutral,democtratic and free for all.--Md iet (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting that all the justifications are in favor. From the discussion above, it looks to me like several people are against this move, and only you are in favor of it.—Chowbok ☠ 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Several people have given arguments against it, but i have given counter argument,which clearly justfy that their view points are not upto the Wiki thinkings and there is no reply available to my counters, hence I claimed that all Justification provided by me holds and are in favour.

Dear Chowbok, it is not the question of one person or many, but what really matters is how much arguments are in favour and how much against ,and whether any valid justification available to those arguments raised.

Without valid justification even thousand person raising that argument are useless to valid justified argument raised by even a single person.

Please see the back history of the article,there were many demands for the title move to "Isa", but thier demand was not properly presented, and it was taken otherwise, whereas their demand was genuine,I feel. The move to be seen positively in the real perspective presented by me, which will not only help Wiki viewer but Wiki itself.

I again request all viewer as of Chowbok ,Wiki administraors and policy makers to view the move in right prospect,provide further counter on my reply and help to decide right action.--Md iet (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me that the action has been decided: to leave the page where it currently is. What would it take to convince you that consensus is not to move it?—Chowbok ☠ 04:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Who has taken the decision on my preposition and why? is to be answered. Merely stating the decision unilaterily and forcing it would not solve the situation.Please justify your statement by countering facts and views presented by me .--Md iet (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the thread above? Peaceworld111, Andrew c, carl bunderson, and Peltimikkom all agreed it shouldn't be moved, and they all gave reasons. Nobody other than you wants it moved.—Chowbok ☠ 08:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear, I have utilised the thread and also made cloth from it(replied one by one). There is no further response of my counters,and none has further questioned on my intentions,reasoning and facts. The meaning is pretty clear.

As explained by me it is not the point that how many person want to replace it and how many not.The point is whose arguments is correct.Telling a lie by many will not make truth spoken by one, lie.In fact there were many who wanted to replace it and there were many allegation ,but the case was not properly presented as stated above( may refer past history of discussion).

If you have further answer to counters raised by me with fact and figures, I would be very happy to accept in the interest of all.Please don't argue and deny facts just for the sack of arguments and be positive on the aspect.

Jesus is a person of god not only for one set of people,but another set also has same faith on him, and has every right to know about him in user freindly manner,which Wiki also desire and every body should cooperate.--Md iet (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that people who disagree with you are liars? Your arguments don't strike me as more factual than the users listed above. The fact is that this is an English encyclopedia, and names should be in English. It's as simple as that.—Chowbok ☠ 12:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking back, pretty much the only argument you've given is that people from Muslim countries who are less familiar with English will look for Isa rather than Jesus. Given that Isa already redirects here, I fail to see why that means we should move this page.—Chowbok ☠ 12:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Chowbok, please don't be person specific.Why I should call somebody liar,but the phrase I quoted was to make my logic home that numbers does not count but the content .

To make page redirect was the one suggestion put forwarded by one viewer,which was implemented by me immediately,but this is not the final solution.Why a group of 1200 million people should back entry for thier beloved person through backdoor. Even a small Tamil(south Indian cast)actor can find article on his name,why a person of divinity can not find article by the real name he is known by 1200 millions.I am arguing not just for the sake of argument and there is no prestige i attach with this but I am really hurt that how can feelings of such a big group can be denied straight forward on filmsy ground if Wiki is claiming to be neutral,truely world class.

Just restating the fact that "this is an English encyclopedia, and names should be in English" does not resolve the issue.Names are always name,and they are just written in English alphabet in English cyclopedia. Now you please see the thread, I have extensively given argument that "Jesus" is not a English translation of "Isa", but Isa is a name of a divine authority ,whom the 1200 million people just know by that specific word.Don't you feel the difference."White House" will remain 'White house' in all the language ,it can't be "Safed Makan"( Hindi Translation) in Hindi cyclopedia. Same is case with 'Isa', "Isa" can not become "Jesus" for the people who know him by name 'Isa'. English Encyclopedia is for people who can read English, you need not translate each name in english,but you have to mention that name in English alphabet.Please understand the difference and cooperate.--Md iet (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this article, and have therefore stumbled into this dispute as well (though I'm sorry I do not have the time to invest in reading everything that has been written so far). I noticed that Isa had been replaced with what essentially was a copy of Jesus in Islam with all references of "Jesus" replaced with "Isa". I believe this is not productive, as it would create two copies of the same article (this is what we call a WP:Content fork), and would create a situation where both would have to be updated any time a change was made. There needs to be one authoritative article on any given topic, not two.

This article clearly and unambiguously states both the Arabic and the phonetic name "Nabi Isa" at the beginning of the article, so I do not believe there is potential for confusion. This is the English Wikipedia, and there is also an Arabic-language article available on the left. Wikipedia is actually meant to be a global project, that's why we have a different Wikipedia for each language. As it stands, the common English name is "Jesus", while other languages have their own name and (should) have their own Wikipedia articles available. If anyone speaks a language for which there is not an article in the common name of your language, I would encourage you to make one on the corresponding Wikipedia for your language so that people of your culture may read it without confusion.

-- Joren (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To Md iet: You may be wondering how people decide what the article title should be in English. Please read WP:COMMON NAME for the current consensus - the basic idea is, we should call it whatever the most common name in English is. Any alternative names should be given a redirect or a disambiguation page, just like your original idea to redirect Isa to this article. That kind of redirecting helps avoid confusion. If you disagree with WP:COMMON NAME, then I would advise you to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, and ask for consensus to change it, but for now the policy appears to mandate this article being called Jesus, with the disambiguator "Jesus in Islam". Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Joren, Thanks for your valuable suggestion. I was also reluctant to make a duplicate page, but our fellow viewer has reservations and do not want to facilitate other fellows who know Jesus by name Isa , and wanted a special page created for islam to be named as "Jesus in Islam" only, so I thought that the move of utilising "Isa" page separately for the purpose may please them and we can have both purpose solved,till the time the group gives up reluctancy.Any way you are right on duplicacy front and have already undone my move .

Dear ,for your second suggestion, I differ a bit. I would be thankful to you if you spare some more time and read the complete discussion. I do know that there are Wiki articles available in other languages, and fellow can have their choice of article in their languages, but we all will agree that the English a common platform for all, and millions of articles available on it and thousand being added regularly, whereas others have total population only thousands in nos. Facilty to access them also not common to ordinary world. English articles are available in plenty, easily accessible,a common platform, english web/computer facility available easily to get the idea made public to whole of world. Wiki has provided such a platform that if a English article exist on a topic then it is automatically understood that the content would be acceptable to the world, as it have unique facility of free and editable by all, which makes it full proof. If we all make it truely democratic,neutral then one can take it for granted that the Wiki has self correction facility and undoubtedly content would be best possibly available,and have best reliability,without bothering it's source.

I am adament for the change in title due to this reason only to make wiki image as true global,true neutral. Giving just one reference of name "nabi Isa" in a complete article which is dedicated for that group of people seems too conservative for a global free Wiki, and you and Wiki shall agree to this. I am suggesting the name "Isa (Jesus of Islam),which is also favorable to the so called group who claims propriotory over it,by refering Jesus in title itself, and making it indicate that it is first name.

Hope my above feeling would be acceptable to you,viewers and Wiki and we could reach to a concensus on title,for a truely global neutral wiki.--Md iet (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We have reached a consensus on the page title. You just don't agree with it.—Chowbok ☠ 12:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply. You are correct in that Wikipedia should be neutral. I think we can agree that this article is meant to educate those who do not know how Islam depicts Jesus, correct? So actually, a primary audience of this article is English-speaking non-Muslims who do not know how the Quran treats Jesus. In fact, I would argue they are the most likely to read the article, since most people come here from a desire to learn what they do not already know.

There are people that could just as well ask, why is it not "Yeshua"? or "Joshua"? "イエス(Iesu)"? "Iesous"? 　As you can see, audiences from any culture can argue that they deserve to have the article localized to their preferences. For this reason, we strive to have Wikipedia available in every language, and for English, we have adopted a neutral standard of using the most common name in English-language reliable sources, while listing significant alternatives in the lead paragraph in an effort to serve everybody. This article has already done both of these things.

Again, if you disagree with WP:COMMON NAME, please raise the question at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. If you have evidence that the majority of reliable sources in English refer to Jesus as "Isa", then please share that here. I hope we can come to an understanding. Also, please do not be discouraged by the fact that many of the Wikipedias in other languages do not have enough articles. English-language Wikipedia began very small, but it has grown enormously with time. Other languages also have Wikipedia; the Japanese Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, and others have seen success; they have information this Wiki does not have, and people in those countries use and prefer their Wikipedia over this one. If you are willing to write articles and help Wiki in the language of your choice, then some day you may expect that people in your area will look to their edition of Wikipedia first, and will find reliable, understandable, neutral information in their own language. Please do not give up on having Wikipedia in your language :) Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Joren,thanks for consideration given to me and Wiki policies. I have given clear evidences,and pointed out reliable sources to ascertain figures provided by me(Please refer my earlier reply) ,to have the feeling that a bulk majority of people refer Jesus as Isa.

Your statement "this article is meant to educate those who do not know how Islam depicts Jesus" and "a primary audience of this article is English-speaking non-Muslims who do not know how the Quran treats Jesus" needs further elaboration.

Let me explain the situation further,The audience of Wiki is english reading people who can understand english, and they need not be expert in english, as I explained earlier they now bulk of english material available on net( via Google etc.), web facility is within reach to common people,english medium is common from the point of view of hardware/software, so a common man can reach to wiki,through Google as soon as he search for any topic of his interest.

Let us be specific and come to topic "Jesus". Let us agree that "Jesus" is most common name amongst it's follower, and the main topic for it should have name "Jesus" ,and it has. Now come to page " Jesus in Islam", this page has two types of audience,one set is English-speaking non-Muslims who do not know how the Quran treats Jesus and second set is English-reading Muslims who want to know more about their beloved Isa/Jesus.Here is the differece of opinion between you (+ all favouring this title) and me. You said that first set of people is "primary audience" and how can you neglect second set of people who are also im thousand of million, 20% of world. Here I require consensus, ,Don't they deserve just mention of the name "Isa" their beloved prophet in the heading.

I request answer to this question before consensus is arrived. Just mention that "We have reached a consensus on the page title" by brother Chowbok and unilateral declarition by you that "now the policy appears to mandate this article being called Jesus, with the disambiguator "Jesus in Islam"." needs rethinking by all.

Regarding your suggestion for topic in other language,I welcome your view point,but as I explained earlier there is no substitute of international platform, and hope that if there is no further disagreement to my above logic and facts provided, amicable decision would be arrived at for title change.--Md iet (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Now let us talk point by point on Wiki policy on [#Deciding on article title]];

Recognizability: will confirm to readers who are familiar with topic; "Isa" name is familiar to 1200 million people who will refer this topic of Islam.Quran refer Jesus as Isa, is there any more reliable source for muslim to prove it.

Common name- reffered in englsh reliable source: Although name is name and there is no translation required but still; Name "isa' is referred in many English translation of Quran;

Translation by Shakir,narrated and refered by Wiki; Translations of the Qur'an, Surah 19, http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/019.qmt.html/,

The Life of Saint Issa (Nicolas Notovitch), http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm/ ,

+ "Isa" articles of many many Isalmic encyclopedia

Naturalness:

readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article:

1200 million muslim know "Jesus" by "Isa" and they will definitely start serch from that name. Wiki policy fully support my argument which I already provided in beginning itself.

In addition to above there are past precedence ,and Wiki and it's viewer are already accepting these norms from last so many years ,one example;

Topic "Islamic view of John the Bapist" moved to "Yahya ibn Zakariyya " long back in 2007 on valid grounds and being accepted till now.

I don't know why so much discussion on "Isa' , when in the topic both Isa as well as Jesus are referred, hope now the discussion must end in coordial manner and let there be win of Wiki policies.--Md iet (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me for the briefness of reply. I will not have time for more today.

1. a bulk majority of people refer Jesus as Isa.

That is not the question. The question is whether the majority of English-language reliable sources refer to Jesus as Isa. Do you believe that the majority of all English reliable sources in the world that mention the person Yeshua uses "Isa" in preference to "Jesus"?

Reply: The statement is in context with Naturalness:

readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article,

This is also a important policy guideline, nad "Isa" word fulfill this.

The point of reliable sources discussed in the next reply 4.--Md iet (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the guideline, common name takes precedence over naturalness. The phrase is: When there is no single obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above. If there isn't a name that's more common, then we can talk about deciding one, and that will include naturalness in the criteria.

-- Joren (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Let us agree that "Jesus" is most common name amongst it's follower,

Not everyone that uses "Jesus" is actually a follower, and not all followers use "Jesus". Please be sensitive to that reality. There are many people that follow no religion at all that use "Jesus", and there are also Christians that use other titles (including Isa!), since Jesus is the English-language corruption of the original name. But again, this is not relevant, because the question is not "who has more followers", the question is "how do English-language reliable sources" refer to Jesus.

Reply:Extremly sorry Dear, It was a slip of tongue,as I am not a habitual English speaking fellow. I wanted to convey ' Most sought reader' and 'follower' is realy a bad substitute.

The message I wanted to convey was that "Jesus" is the word most common used by most sought readers and "Jesus" word inclusion in title is justified.--Md iet (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC). The issue regarding 'how do English-language reliable sources' is replied in reply to point 4.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

-- Joren (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Don't they deserve just mention of the name "Isa" their beloved prophet in the heading.

Yes, they most certainly do, and they should expect to see the name Isa in the lede paragraph. Indeed, they already have it there. It says Nabi Isa quite specifically. Are there any other names that should be in the lede that you are aware of?

Reply: here is actual difference of opinion, Refering name in the the description is not sufficent .Justice is not made to the article having international,interreligion importance.--Md iet (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is that not sufficient? As far as I can tell, the policy says it's only possible to have one title for the article, and to use redirects and mention other titles in the lede paragraph. If you disagree with the policy or my interpretation of it, please ask the people at Wikipedia_talk:Article titles, as they are the most familiar with the policy and would be able to provide constructive input.

-- Joren (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

4. Common name- reffered in englsh reliable source

Actually, the title should be the most common name used in English-language reliable sources. Thank you for your links, however, having an English-language source that uses "Isa" is not the same has saying that a majority of English-language sources use Isa. Article names are decided according to how the majority of English-language sources treat the topic. Please see WP:COMMON NAME.

Reply: Definitely the "Most" word have a specific importance, but policies are to be seen in broader prospective and there are hidden interferences and the overall meaning to be drawn according the situation. Here the "most' word has different answer if we consider the main article V/S it's sub parts.

Most common name for main article of "Jesus/ Isa /Isa Masih/ Yesu / Iesu / "Yeshua" / "Joshua" / "イエス(Iesu) / Iesous" is difinitely "Jesus" , as it is undoubtedly "most common name reffered in English general sources".

Whereas if most common name for sub article "Jesus/ Isa /Isa Masih/ Yesu/ Iesu" of Islam" article is asked for then the most common name must be also in that context. Most Common name can't be selected from "Most common name from general sources' but from "reliable english sources refering to Isalm' , and reliable sources can't be better than Quran itself and it's translation " and articles written on Quran. 'Isa' word is most commonly refered in the Islamic context and I would rather say that there is no other word exist in Islam and for the name there can't be any substitute , as I argued that "White House" can't be translated in any other lanquages.The real name "Isa" need specific mention in the title itself ,even most common name guidelines of policy is followed. .--Md iet (talk ) 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is the only point made so far that might be a good reason to consider changing the title of the article. IF it can be established that English-language reliable sources prefer the name "Isa" to the name "Jesus" when talking about Jesus in Islam, then there would be reason to change the title of the article to Isa. But it really ought to be one or the other; combining them both to "Isa (Jesus in Islam)" is just going to make it harder for people to search for the article. One of these titles needs to be the name and the other needs to be redirected.

I did some initial Googling (of course Google is not going to decide this discussion, we need WP:RS but this is just a sketch, a rough idea) Try searching for Isa and Islam, and you get about 3 million hits. Try searching Jesus and Islam and you get 18 million. We can also try Google Scholar. Isa and Islam gets 27,100 hits, whereas Jesus and Islam gets 86,900. However, these are not rigorous enough... you'll notice a lot of extraneous stuff in both of those searches. I noticed some posts earlier in the discussion actually talked about some specific reliable sources that use Jesus, so how about those? At first glance, it does seem like Jesus is more common even within the context of reliable sources talking about Islam in English.

-- Joren (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

5. 1200 million muslim know "Jesus" by "Isa" and they will definitely start serch from that name.

And that's why we have a redirect in place for Isa, to make sure they can get to the article.

Reply; Dear Joren, mere redirect doesn't serve the policy. Policy clearly specify second important condition of Naturalness,readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article in deciding title. Every one repeating "Most Common" "Most Common", but no one is bothered about Naturalness. This is to be taken care while deciding title and not in Redirect.

You haven't made a whole hearted gift to reader by redirecting, but it is me who thought a alternate substitute,acting on suggestion of one of the reader. Every one should think for appropriate , just, neutral, user friendly solution Please.--Md iet (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, what would you consider a "whole hearted gift" to readers who have never heard the name Isa and are simply trying to find this article? Any reader can say "the article isn't friendly enough for me." This is why we have redirects, and this is why we take care to mention all significant alternate titles in the lede paragraph. Somebody's going to feel left out no matter what we do.

-- Joren (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

6. unilateral declarition by you that "now the policy appears to mandate this article being called Jesus, with the disambiguator "Jesus in Islam"

Perhaps you are not familiar with the phrase "appears to"? It is not a "declaratory" phrase, it is a phrase used when a person is attempting to understand the situation. People use "appears to" to admit that they may not know everything. Anyway my point is, "appears to mandate XYZ" means that XYZ is what we get when we try to figure out how to apply the policy correctly. Again, if you disagree with the policy, you should ask them directly and invite their opinions here.

Reply: Dear ,as I already admitted and well seen from English, that I am not a English literature expert but I know that still I can contribute wiki with the help of you all. Wiki is neutral democratic platform I suppose, and I delberatly used "Appears to" to have further scope of correction and in democracy every one has right to improve, and every one should honour that.

I don't disagree with policy, but forcefully says that I honour the policy. But one should understand that policies are framed for betterment and to have disciplined system, but can not be hindrence in any anyway.Policies are to be taken in right prospectives, and there can always some exceptions. Experts opinions are always to be welcome and to be incorporated.I appreciate that even Wiki has given option open to edit it's policy itself to readers which is a great.--Md iet (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Another note. Isa is not a bad word. There are Arabic Christians that use Isa. Ok? I applaud them. Japanese people use "Iesu", a name which I have used as well. But try not to turn this into a question of which name do people like better, because ALL cultures deserve respect here, not only the most popular one. The question is which name do English-language reliable sources use most often.

Reply: Dear,Pl don't elaborate this way, let us think better. I am not in favour of any word specific.All the words are men created.Don't define any specific word ,but think what sense it make to the person and how the person can reach to his goal best through that word.

-- Joren (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see my reply point by point to matter pointed out by Dear Joren, I still feel that my suggestion need specific attention/interference of all . "Most common name in Islamic context" + "Naturalnes' policy added together will give "isa" word a definite chance of inclusion along with word 'Jesus'. Wiki is honoured this type of suggestion in past as example given by me above and we should be positive and open.--Md iet (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

some further correction in reply made ,may pl.see.--Md iet (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I replied. I'm sorry I haven't had a lot of time for this discussion. I would really encourage you to ask the people over at Wikipedia_talk:Article titles about this if you believe the consensus expressed by most of the users here so far does not reflect that policy. Thanks for your continued participation, and I hope you'll be able to help improve this article no matter what the name happens to be.

-- Joren (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear,Thanks again for your kind reply and time devoted. I respect your views ,but somehow my concense does not allow myself and still have strong belief that Wiki policy is not a hindrence to this just move.

Wiki policies says;

"The principal criteria used by editors when deciding on a title for an article include:

• Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject.

• Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what English, in an encyclopedic register, actually calls the subject (this does not mean Wikipedia must follow other encyclopedias' titles).

Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names)."

Here both Recognizability and Naturalness are given equal importance.

Recognisability :

"an ideal title will confirm,Readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic": In this case a bulk(+1900 Million total) "Readers" are from Muslim+ Hindu world and they know Jesus by only name the "Isa".As this topic is specific for topic in Islam, +1200 muslim to be given preference while deciding "reader".

Hence these +1900 million people are a bulk of "readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic" and the title should "confirm to" them also, as policy says.

As these people know Jesus by the name "isa" (most know by only"Isa"), inclusion of word "Isa" is justified .

Second group is all other who know Jesus by word "Jesus" only.This group is also familiar with topic,and wants to know "Jesus" of Islam world.Giving secondary consideration on 'familiarity' part 'Jesus' word can be added for them.

the use of common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject.

'common English names':'name' is 'name', it is 'Personnel Noun', there can't be any translation ,As explained by me very extensively, for 'white' and 'house' their is language translation but 'White House" does not have any translation.

'Isa' word is also used as 'name' in English reliable sources, and "isa' is "Isa" ,this can't be further defined as 'common' or 'not common' or 'most common'. As such 'Name' does not need any further language or definition or source identification.it is just identification mark,and need only confirmation that how much it's familiarity .

Hence in selection of title on name, language or source issue never arises ,it is only familiarity and naturalness which count most, and Wiki policies are to be read in that context please.

Naturalness

As such on 'Naturalness' there is no POV difference,but still further discussed in context with Wiki policies;

"Titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article" :

Her the "reader" are;

(1)less educated 1200 million english reading Muslim world,who know 'Jesus' by only name 'Isa' +

(2)other world who know 'Jesus' by name 'Jesus'.

Other world can reach "Jesus in Islam" through article "Jesus" , but what is means available for first category to look for Jesus for their specific religion, the only word available is "Isa".

I have further analysed my point quoting Wiki policy word by word. On both Recognizability and Naturalness front "Isa" word has full right for inclusion,both policy part have equal importance. My discussion above has all valid arguments with fact figure and sources provided.

All arguments provided against this move has no further view point to my justifications except suggestion to get final say to be provided by the people over at Wikipedia_talk:Article titles .The talk page will discuss the policy regarding 'the title issue' in general,and may not be further help to this,however I don't have any objection to that.I have thrown open this discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Article titles also,any valuable sugesstion are most welcome.

My above word by word confirmation of the policy justify inclusion of word "Isa" in the title . I request further suggestions/interference from the expert on the topic of 'Jesus of Islam' and administrator if they have any further say.--Md iet (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Above reply further edited to convey my views better please.--Md iet (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors, above, have said it better than I. Jesus is standard for English Wikipedia. If we change one name, we must change them all. For people whose second or third language is English, perhaps they would be better off reading in their first language where it would, doubtless, have a "proper" name. Student7 (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear, Pl. ref complete discussion above, I have already given extensive reply to your worry. Please count of change has less importance over analysis why need change. English Wikepedia can not be counted at par with routine another language Wiki. English Wiki is a common international platform ,read by billions of peoples.A lot of importance,in the sense that once the matter sustain this wiki, it has automatic approval of a major world, no need of any further approval,it's viewers are its authenticity approver, as it has autocorrection facility,which is a gem of quality,unmatchable. Please don't compare this Wiki with others,and there is equal right on this wiki of reader, who are in ample nos., and while deciding Recognizability and Naturalness part of policy on title selection,they have equal say, there first, second, or third language question doesnot arises( only important is whether they can read English).

As I reasoned earlier, when we count on numbers and percentage of readers, the problem of no.of change requirement would reduce to very limited articles, and not for all. Because familarity , and search criteria policy automatically would favour majority .

As in present case article, 'Jesus in Islam' is religion specific. Readers are 1200 to 1800 millions. For main religion, specific separte article "Jesus' is already available having further redirect to Islam in that article itself. Change of aticle title having mention of "Isa" in it,appears to be wholly justified. If we are further particular about 'most' common word,(although Wiki has avoided this word in policy),we can add Jesus word in the title, but discarding 'Isa' word does not seem justified to Wiki policies/credential of free,neutral, and democratic front.

I hope that 'Isa( Jesus of Islam)' ( or better substitute with both 'Isa' and 'Jesus' word in it) title would be accomodatble on a just cause (as there are two to three times lengthy title exist in the Wiki).--Md iet (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Md iet: I appreciate that you've made your argument for this change courteously and respectfully, and I also understand that this proposed page move is important to you. The fact is, however, that nobody aside from yourself is in favor of this change. I think it would be less frustrating for you if you were to accept that this is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, and moved on to other things. I think you provide a valuable perspective to the project, and I'm glad you're here editing, but perhaps you should read WP:STICK at this point.—Chowbok ☠ 22:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Chowbok, Thanks for your kind advice,

Let me tell you, 'the move' is not important for "ME" as you think but it is important for "WIKI" and us all. Don't be person specific or group specific and think on broader prospective.

WP:STICK is a very good thought, but this is for one who is fighting for 'win'.Dear ,my aim is all together different. My point of view has already won,when there is no one to counter my argument and the stage has come to think some one for "Stick" . Now I want that 'Wiki' should win, and it's policies to prevail over all other things,and it becomes really one that nobody can point finger toward it,and it should become realy free for all to edit,democratic ,neutral,and become such a sea of knowledge that any body can rely on it blindly.

Now for me it's immaterial whether some one again undo my 'page move',but it is of imporatnce that he makes me satisfied on my point of view about Wiki policies.If someone undo the thing without convincing on Wiki policy,then it is Wiki failure to check that offender,not my problem ,but I don't want to see that wiki become so helpless. I really want to see Wiki on top as it's principle make it.

Would somebody convince further against fact,figures and wiki policy Narrated by me or I can presume it to be rightly presented and ask Wiki to move ahead.--Md iet (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No response on my last call,I further request all the readers and adm in to give their valuable comments on above discussion presuming 'page move' has taken place.

I may further stress that I am not asking any change in the title of main article of 'Jesus', here we can consider 'most common reliable sources',but when question comes for 'Islamic Jesus',without any doubt 'Isa" is Islamic jesus, no need of any proof other than "QURAN" and whole Islam world for this fact.Still it has also fulfilled criteria of Recognizability and Naturalness of wiki policy in broader terms,and have reliable english sources to fulfilled all legal policy hurdles.

Hope we may give some more time (probably one more week) for further respose and any over ruling admin want to give on this 'page move', else pl. allow to presume the permission on the move.--Md iet (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not had much time to devote to this conversation, I'm afraid. Please do not think you can establish consensus just because everyone else is too busy to talk here :) I am beginning to feel like this conversation is going in circles. I have strived to show that under the current policy, we are obliged to keep the article named as it is, regardless of our personal opinions. If the policy itself is wrong, then you should ask for it to be changed on the policy talk page, not here. Others as well have answered your points, also referring to policy, and so far I have not seen a response to those specific concerns. I think part of the problem is that we are indeed communicating across a cultural and linguistic gap, and we may have difficulty understanding one another.

I agree with you that "Wikipedia" should win. The goal here is consensus, not for any one person's POV to "win". One person doesn't make a consensus. We all (or as many of us as possible) need to come to a common understanding.

-- Joren (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ,Joren for sparing time from your busy schedule.When you are talking on policy,I have elaborated policy point by point and answered all earlier specific concern.Now it is your turn for response. Just opposing the move will not serve the purpose,it has to be proved point by point where the violation of policy has been on my individual relpy on major criterias of Recognizability+reliable english sources and Naturalness of wiki policy .

On the 'Consensus' front , all point on policy terms to be discussed and justified point by first. First the issue to be weigh in term of policy ,if there is more than one interpratation or confusion than point of consensus comes. When the point is not justified with policy ,how the question of one person or many comes.May pl. spare time to answer.Just counting nos will not help,earlier there were so many objection on prevailing title, how come you count no.against as one.I fear that wiki 's credibility is at stake, which should not happen.--Md iet (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have answered you point by point, but it may have gotten lost. As far as naturalness, I will quote what I said earlier:

According to the guideline, common name takes precedence over naturalness. The phrase is: When there is no single obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above. If there isn't a name that's more common, then we can talk about deciding one, and that will include naturalness in the criteria.

-- Joren (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• To put it another way, the common name is the most natural way to search for an article. What I have attempted to show (please see my Google and Google Scholar statistics, above) is that there is an obvious common name, and that takes precedence. Unfortunately we cannot have two "common names", we have to choose one, but as I've said before, use a redirect and we can have the best of both worlds. That is what redirects are for. Another point I made before:

it really ought to be one or the other; combining them both to "Isa (Jesus in Islam)" is just going to make it harder for people to search for the article. One of these titles needs to be the name and the other needs to be redirected.

• There is nothing natural about "Isa (Jesus in Islam)". No one searching for the article is going to think of using parentheses (like this) to search for something... "Jesus in Islam" and "Isa" are both more natural than "Isa (Jesus in Islam)". It needs to be either "Isa" or "Jesus in Islam" for the main title, and use the redirect for the other. Do you understand this point?
• Anyone searching for "Isa" will get taken to this article: Try it! :) Go to wikipedia.org, Type in "Isa", and you will be immediately taken to this article, which includes the Arabic and the title "Nabi Isa". Isn't this what we both want, to make sure the reader can find this article? We have already done this :)

-- Joren (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Title move,Further detailed analysis :

(contd.further from section'Further discussion on title') Dear Joren,

To answer your viewpoint, we have to analyse the wiki policy in detail; Before we anlyse the wiki policy , I would like to clear my inception about Wiki;

I feel that “Wiki is a world organistion ( not of USA,Europe,India or of any specific region), meant to serve for all humanity irrespective of cast, creed, religion,status, background, colour or any other category one can define. Every body can think of wiki as his own organisation and claims his all rights to get information of his choice without any restriction.

To fufil this aim there is language barrier, Wiki will try it’s best to give all the information it have in all the languages,with the aim that every body can access it to the best extent possible.”

Now resolve present specific issue  ;

Your argument : “’ common name’ has precedence over all “:

Wiki Main Policy:

“Recognizability –

an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject”.

+ 'Naturalness'+ ....

Further Wiki guide line to above points ;

1.‘Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.’

2. ‘When there is no single obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above’.

Now analyse the above policy and guidelines carefully, the clear implication are as follows;

1.’common name’ is a “one important” aspect of recognizibility, and not the sole aspect.This implies that “recognizability” is the main criteria of which ‘common name’ is a part.( i.e.in case of dispute 'common name' aspect to be considered, when in further dispute 'most common name' to be considered.).

This further imply that we should start with main object of “recognizability”, and not that in the name of 'most common name', one dilute 'recognizability'.

2. “recognizability” implies as ;

“an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic” To summarise further;

“recognizability” is main criteria for title selection whose main aim;

Title should confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic” one of important aspect: common name.

Now come to present specific case

Subject: Isa , Jesus of Islam

1.Main aim of 'recognizability':'

‘Title should confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic”’:

‘Readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic’ :

As the topic is of the person of Islam (“that the article is indeed about”),the most familiar readers would be naturaly readers knowing Islam ( for other group of readers separate article 'jesus' available as discussed below separately) . This implies ;

Most familiar reader = readers knowing Islam

Subject known by most ‘familiar ‘ readers ,which are mostly knowing Islam = Isa

Hence title should be =Isa

2.one of important aspect : ‘name most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources’ ‘Subject of article’=on a specific person (a personal noun)

Name most commonly used to refer to the subject = name of the person( a personal noun) in the context ( context is Islam and most familiar reader are also reader knowing Islam(as per point1.above)= Isa (as one specific identification, one name,which can not be translated,(as name is name and it is same in all languages) .

The above analysis clearly implicate the title as “Isa’ as per policy followed word by word . Title should be kept as “ISA”

Now we can further argue about the rest of readers which are not so ‘familiar’ to this specific subject but also has equal right to the subject. As this subject has multiple dimension ,although a personnel noun, but has different identity in different group. A another big group know this personality as “‘Jesus” . Wiki has already considered the group and allocated title “Jesus’ of an article and that group can know about their leader through that article. That article further has Islamic part also hence the provision is already granted for that group to know how the other group perceive their leader. Hence as per mission of Wiki that group has been reasonably satisfied. The provision are made to go to directly special page of Islamic jesus for people who more enthuestic about that part.

Now think once a group has been allocated special article by their’ familiar’ name , is a second group of substantial size don’t deserve the article of their familiar name. I think no body can think of denying it, I feel. Deny that group on logic of most common name , most reliable sources seems denying easy access to that group, and this I treat as not at all fare if we judge wiki as world ,free,neutral democratic , and aspiring the mission above.

[[The above analysis being done keeping in mind the mission pointed out in beginning.Presuming, there exist a group ,who wants to know about their religious leader,and approaching wiki for that. In present specific case a group of 1800 million people( 30 % of world) wants to know about there religious leader whom they know as ‘Isa’ only. Now judge that whether analysis done above as per Wiki policy word by word is fairly done?]]

“Isa” should be the best title possible, but to make it more accommodating to reader and break the sackle , I proposed amalgam of two title as Isa( Jesus of Islam), which should be given a fair chance.

Searching and reaching through redirect are just other provisions and these are additional facility provided ,by naming that wiki can not deny proper title selection. When word ‘Isa’ is typed for search, all option would come in which Isa(Jesus of islam )would also appear immediately,and people can reach the destination.Isa redirect will also remain as it is further helping the cause.

Hope above indepth analysis will end all the discussions and let all the readers are given free and fair acceessabilty . No chance is to be given to any group, to point finger towards Wiki.

I request point by point response to above analysis just beside/below the point raised if there is difference of opinion, to judge the correctness of issue. Just denying the fact and giving argument that there is no consensus on basis of number of person is not fair .--Md iet (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Further We have to understand the psychology of a general reader,this Wiki is supposed to be for all English reader, no group has any preference over the other.hence it is Wiki policy's resposibility that no one fill underprevilage to keep wiki's ideals and principles on top.There were questions in the past on the subject ,which is not a healthy sign for wiki.

Dear Joren, Your most of further arguments were on proving that, by begining with word Isa, one can reach to the article. That is the minimum facilty wiki should give to the reader,that we have provided with redirect facility.This is not the solution as I argued earlier. Main 'Jesus' article if named as 'Isa' ,and 'Jesus' word is redirected to 'Isa', then will any body agree,certainly not. The same logic apply here, 1800 million reader don't want to reach to their leader with back entry,and it is very difficult to make a general reader understand otherwise. That's why there are policy framed for selecting the title,and Recognizability ( I criteria:for familiarity to most reader of the specific subject,II:in case of dispute 'common name' aspect to be considered, III:when in further dispute 'most common name' to be considered ) and Naturalness of wiki policy are criteria and any judgement to be done on these criteria first then the question of consensus come.--Md iet (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope,my viewpoints have been further considered, and I am able to draw the point home.--Md iet (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear all fellow participants,readers and Admin,

I request once again to go through my view points and suggest,if there is further opinion difference, which need further discussion,else can we presume consensus on title move ?, thanks,--Md iet (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you may not presume consensus from a lack of response. You've been told this about a hundred times now.—Chowbok ☠ 03:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, very good, would you please compensate of lack of response and answer to my last analysis on policy, point by point? I suppose just saying 'No' is not good enough.--Md iet (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is almost a week and there is no response from any quarter.Do any body require some more time,how much? --Md iet (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading the above discussion, I think there is a clear consensus at this time not to move. There is obviously not unanimity, but if there are no further arguments forthcoming, I propose that we close the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear, If you have read the discussion,answer to my last analysis of policy. Just passing the judgement would't serve the purpose.This is not the election ,where majority will hold.Here the just will prevail.

There are daily objection for removing photographs,adding titles etc.in many articles ,do anybody agree?, No , there is no unanimity ,but still policy is prevailing over other things.

The discussion cannot be closed.If policy cannot support view of a group of people,and they cannot prove otherwise ,then they have to agree for just.Md iet (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that we close this discussion. Md iet has had more than enough time to convince others of his viewpoint, and has not done so. It's clear that it's time to move on.—Chowbok ☠ 10:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please answer to my last query.I am not to convince anybody,you have to convince about policies which are clearly spelled and analysed.If somebody has decided not to agree, none can convince him,but truth will prevail.There is no answer to my analysis ,this itself tell that you don't have further say on account of policy. I am not going to close the discussion till policy analysis is complete for the sake of Wiki. Admin may pl. give their expert opinion on the matter.--Md iet (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

title move from 'Jesus in Islam' to 'Isa( Jesus of Islam)

Against analysis done as per Wiki policy guideline ,there is no further convincing response.Reader don't reply point by point,and just insist that there is no consensus.-Md iet (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you even know what a consensus is? JanetteDoe (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You seriously need to drop this. Despite weeks and pages and pages of arguments, you have yet to convince a single person. Let it go, already.—Chowbok ☠ 20:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry,I am not so good in my presentation that you all have grievance against me, and would be thankful to JanetteDoe if he would be kind enough to enlighten me further on 'consensus'.

As I understand, I feel question of consensus will come when analysis is done step by step first,and meaning are elaborated for each steps. If there is opinion difference on individual step, then process of consensus can be asked for against individual opinion. If mutual understanding can be done by discussion and if all agree than auto consensus,else opinion having most favour will prevail.

Here in the present case some body is just talking on "most common name" ,without going into definition of "recognisabilty' than 'Familirity, than "name' than 'common name' than 'Most common name' . Till you go step by step and just fight on 'most common name in English' and say that there is no consensus,it is very hard to digest. I want to request,Please do step by step analysis first ,with wiki policy in background and then come to some conclusion and the if opinion difference consensus will prevail. I have tried to do step by analysis in my last detailed reply, please give your valuable comments on each step and if there is opinion difference we all are here to resolve.--Md iet (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• In the "languages" section, at the left side of the article, I can see that some wikipedias use "Isa" in the article name, like zh-min-nan:Isa, tr:İslam'da_İsa, de:Isa_ibn_Maryam, eo:Isa_bin_Marjam, id:Isa, etc. Other wikipedias use "Jesus". This is probably because in some languages the name "Isa" is more common, and in other languages it's less common. In English the name "Isa" is not common, and that's why we should use "Jesus". --Enric Naval (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess German may be a special case because of the writings of Karl May. Many of his still extremely popular books play in an Arabic context, and the words "Isa ben Maryam" occur in them very often. Hans Adler 15:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC comment - I would have to say that Jesus is the most common form of the name used in the English language. While some English-speaking Muslim editors (I hope I used the right word for practioners of Islam there) might prefer and themselves most clearly recognize the name Isa for that person, this article is not really targeted for reading by Muslim editors, but by all English speaking readers, and a lot of us who are lifelong Christians (I count myself among that number) barely recognize the word "Isa" as referring to the same person. I assume much the same might hold for English speakers of other faiths than Christianity and Islam as well. So, while I have no objections to a redirect from "Isa" to this article, I would think that WP:NAME would probably indicate that the existing name for the article is the one which would be most familiar to the majority of readers. Speaking personally, if I were to type in "Jesus in Islam" or something similar and see a page called "Isa" come up, I would not myself necessarily be immediately sure that I was on the right page. Using the same word as the other articles use helps make it clearer to more editors that they are in fact dealing with the same subject. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The redirect in question, Isa, already exists. There is also a link to Isa (disambiguation) at the top of this article in case the reader is looking for a different Isa.

-- Joren (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe I answered this once before at the thread that was brought to WP:ANI. It is absolutely clear to me that the only policy compliant name is "Jesus in Islam". Unless the results of the RfC somehow surprisingly indicate a different consensus than what appears above and appeared at WP:ANI, I strongly recommend that Md iet drop this issue. It is clear to me that 1) reading the discussion above, many other editors have addressed each and every point you have raised and 2) your desire is completely against policy. At this point you have very much gone into what we call "beating a dead horse." In case you are unfamiliar with the phrase and policy, it means that while we definitely allow and want long detailed discussions on points of dispute, once consensus has been reached, it is time for those still disagreeing to back down and let the argument go (i.e., to cease beating on a horse that is already dead). It is simply reality that all of us, if we are regularly involved in Wikipedia, will end up opposed to consensus at some point, and it is our responsibility as good editors to drop the issue. In the future, after a few months, if you either have new evidence or you see some other reason to indicate that consensus has changed, then you can re-raise the issue. Again, if suddenly a bunch of trustworthy, knowledgeable editors flood in here with cogent, policy-compliant arguments supporting the name change, then more discussion is warranted. But, absent that, it's time to walk away. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,Qwyrxian for the time provided,As I am outstation and can't devote much time ,Iam repeating your last reply and my answer down below hope it will do some value addition in the discussion,please have a look in the analysis done by me w.r.t theme of Wiki policies and revisit your opinion and don't feel the horse is dead,and we can still make him stand. I am not bothered about outcome, let it be anyway,but the Wiki policy should prevail atleast.--Md iet (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to do a step-by-step analysis. Policy in this case is clear, and overrides any other external-to-Wikipedia issues you may have. Since Jesus is the most common name for this historical person/historical figure/historical myth (whatever term you prefer), Jesus is the name we are required to use. It's just that simple. As a simple comparison, the Wikipedia article for the city in Italy is called Florence, despite that fact that no one who lives there, or who has ever lived there, calls it that. Now, if you want to argue that Wikipedia policy on article names should be changed, there are places where you can do that. But unless you can show that "Isa" is a more common name in English articles of encyclopedic level (i.e., encyclopedias, scholarly journals, very high quality news sources, textbooks, etc.), then the article can't be moved. The only logic for moving the title would be if you were to show that Jesus shows up in encyclopedic, English sources less than 3 times as often as Isa; if you can't, all of your other (external-to-Wikipedia) arguments are moot.

In short, I think you're perhaps just not understanding the fact that Wikipedia operates based on a set of policies and guidelines, not all of which match people's common sense and/or local logic. In this case, what your sense/logic tells you about article titles doesn't match policy/guidelines. There is nothing wrong with this; but, in order for us all to be able to work together, we have to operate under consensus-based policies as much as possible. Otherwise, we'd never be able to move forward on anything but the least contentious of articles.

I hope this makes sense--no one is saying your ideas don't have merit in a general sense, just that within the confines of how we work on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Having read through that talk page, all I can say is would you please drop it. You've been banging on about this move for months, and I don't see a single person there agreeing with you. You've been told several times that Wikipedia policy and guidelines (specifically Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Translation) support the current title, yet proceeded to move the page unilaterally (which was quickly reversed). There is a perfectly good redirect at Isa. the wub "?!" 10:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply :

The fact that “ Wikipedia operates based on a set of policies and guidelines” Is only the point which I want to stress . Here there is no need to “ match people's common sense and/or local logic” as Qwyrxian pointed out. “Since Jesus is the most common name for this historical person/historical figure/historical myth (whatever term you prefer), Jesus is the name we are required to use. It's just that simple.” This is simple for the main article on ‘Jesus’ ,but definitely not as simple for secondary page on Islam as you concluded in one go. Where do you get criteria of ‘most common name’ phrase Qwyrxian, it is from no where else ,but from Wiki policy ‘Wikipedia:Article titles’. I want to read that policy ,step by step and do the analysis and don’t jump to ‘most common name’ phrase directly it is the only request ,I want to make. The policy says:

1.Principal criteria

“The principal criteria used by editors when deciding on a title for an article include:

“* Recognizability

– an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject.”

2. If doubt on common name then;

“Common names :

Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language [[WP:RS|reliable sources”

3. If still no agreement on common name:

“When there is no single obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above.

(This means main criteria is Recognizability,and other criteria are:Naturalness.Precision Conciseness* Consistency)

As Qwyrxian said “‘We don't need to do a step-by-step analysis’ of ‘any other external-to-Wikipedia issues you may have ’”, very correct, I also don’t want to discuss external issue, but you can’t deny discussing step by step analysis of wiki main policy ‘Wikipedia:Article titles’ as above.

Dear ”the wub”, you have listed all policy and guidelines related with deciding ‘title’ .The main wiki policy to follow is Wikipedia:Article titles, is it OK?

All other policy you mentioned are further ‘guidelines’ policies to follow the main policy Wikipedia:Article titles. These to be referred further when there is ambiguity and one is not able to decide with main criterias. Is it OK?

(Even ,Wikipedia:Search engine test,policy says ‘Search engines cannot: Guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean, rather than other uses.’ Hence in the present case type of use is important, and not the just proof,)

“jesus’ is definitely most common name in english reliable source and it should be tittle for article’Jesus’, When there is a separate article is created for Jesus of Islam ,it’s most reader are common Islamic men (1.8 billion) and they know him by name ‘Isa” ,so search engine cannot reflect the use, as policy says, and you can’t accept that result blindly, here that’s why Wiki has mentioned ‘ main criteria ‘ as ‘Recognizability ‘, And kept ‘common name’ in criteria as sub condition.’ Most common name’ in further sub section.)

Now I request to do the analysis in sequence as above (may Pl. refer my analysis done on talk page) ,and we may get the answer. If you still say it is ‘most common name’ only, I would abide by you. Please have a look in this respect as you are entrusted with responsibility of Admin and I have expectations from Admin to uphold neutrality of Wiki. I feel the present Wiki policy is reasonably framed good to accommodate this issue, else we can further discuss on policy further at other forum.--Md iet (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

--Md iet (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• This article should not be renamed to anything involving "Isa", because "Isa" is not a name used in English. Isa already goes to the appropriate place.—Kww(talk) 06:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Except you (Md iet) keep assuming, for some reason, that most people searching for the article are going to be English speaking Muslims. You talk about how many Muslims there are, but how many of them use Wikipedia? How many of them speak English? I don't know. It could be 5%, it could be 50%. And even if there are many, if they know English, the will know that the common name in English is Jesus. Furthermore, I do know that many non--Muslims will also search for "Jesus in Islam". And I know that, among those people, Jesus is by far and away the more common name. In any event, we can't measure which name is more common among Muslims--we have no tools to do so. But we can measure the more common name in English, and that's what leads us to the conclusion that the article name now is correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian,there is no need to assume anything. Whatever analysis I have done is on real basis. Wiki is supposed to be international,free and neutral encyclo meant for all who can read English. It should include all the internatinal topic covering all. Isa is one important personality of a bulk part of the world, if 60% of them are English literate,then also a free media can not deprive them of article on him. Wiki has already granted a separate article on him, why there is hitch on choice of title of 'Isa',as these are the "readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic( that the article is indeed about that topic)" and they refer him by Isa as of his first name. This is the policy of Wiki and analysis on title to be done accordingly.--Md iet (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing more to add, because you're definitely in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode. You're saying that those people who 1) speak English 2) use en.wiki and 3) know of this person more as Isa than as Jesus outnumber, significantly, those people who know of the person as Jesus. And that doesn't matter, because that's not the question. The only question is "what is the most commonly used name in English." The fact that you keep making other statements, while avoiding the most basic part of policy, means there's really nothing more to be done here. Note that you haven't convinced anyone else of your position. At this point, unless a bevy of uninvolved editors come to support your position, it looks like consensus is fairly firmly on the side of Jesus in Islam, and that furthermore, that consensus matches policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry dear all for my delay in reply, as you may know I was blocked by some of dears who feel me otherwise. I am also told that you are also really fed up with me. Anyway thanks everybody for the time given to me and sustaining my ‘very good’ English and ‘beautiful’ arguments.

I tried further to answer last remarks of Qwyrxian in my talk page and expressed my view .All out efforts are made by you all such that I should stop this discussion and now I also feel that it is enough for the present, but abrupt finish without a fair conclusion would be not fair for free Wiki. Hence I contd. the topic in 'my talk' page, and given concluding reply on the subject. Interested may like to see and answer pl. --Md iet (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is more than two weeks, may I expect few minutes more from fellow editor for answering my questionnaire just in yes/no. May pl. oblige for Wikis sake.--Md iet (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Title

{{Requested move/dated|Islamic view of Jesus}}

• Jesus in Islam → Islamic view of Jesus

To conform to existing members of Category:Muslim views of Biblical figures. ―cobaltcigs 12:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This article used to be called that. There was a previous discussion here: Talk:Jesus_in_Islam/Archive_2#Islamic_View_of_Jesus.

Would also note that current title appears to be in alignment with Jesus in Christianity, Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam, etc. But then there is Judaism's view of Jesus as well. I kind of like the current title (though not for any of the reasons voiced in that archive discussion... couldn't really follow the logic behind the accusation that the title "Islamic view of Jesus" was POV.)

-- Joren (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Actually the category itself should be renamed to Category:Islamic views of Biblical figures or some-such. Christian view of Jesus would be fine, as would Ahmadiyyan view of Jesus (or whatever is the accepted adjectival form). ―cobaltcigs 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My reasons for preferring "in Islam" are that it's short and simple, and I believe it is a more natural expression and easier to guess if one were searching for it. WP:TITLE mentions conciseness and naturalness as among the five factors. I do not believe "in Islam" to be detrimental to its recognizability or its precision.

However, as to consistency: it would be good to have a convention that all similar articles follow. We should decide on a pattern for this and the other articles as well (e.g. should be consistent with other religions views of Jesus AND views of other people in Islam)

-- Joren (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, perhaps we could close this for the moment and (at the risk of offending everyone on my block) explore renaming similar religious-view forks to the convention you describe, for example:

• Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) → Mary in Catholicism
• Islamic view of Moses → Moses in Islam
• Judaism's view of Jesus → Jesus in Judaism
• Medieval Christian views on Muhammad → Muhammad in Christianity or …in medieval Christianity perhaps

What would be the best place to discuss this? ―cobaltcigs 19:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting... I'm not sure where to bring that up though. It would be good to seek input from a variety of editors who might have alternate ideas or different reasons to consider. WP:WikiProject Religion perhaps?

-- Joren (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No christian consensus on the signifiance of Messiah

It is stated in the article that the Muslim's idea of the concept of Messiah, is different to that of Christians..:

although this particular term does not correspond with the meaning given to it by Christians.

This statement gives the impression that there exists a common christian idea, and similarly that muslims are united in their perspective on the meaning of Messiah. Such formulation, I think, create a false impression. What seems to be common of all denominations refering to Messiah, whether it is Judaic, Christian or Muslim (not necessarily mutually exclusive), is that this is an entitlement meaning anointed (by God). This concept is also present in vedic philosophy. Even in Buddhism, the historic Buddha was entitled to become Universal Monarch, but declined, and left the throne empty. Allthough refusing this enthronement, Prince Siddharta did not abolish it, but left it for the future world-age Buddha Maitreya of whom many (i.e. Dalai Lama) regard the historic Jesus to be an Boddhisattva emanation of. In Canonised litterature the Kings of Israel: David, Salomo, and even Artaxerxes (here meaning true Xerxes, cf. Ahasuerus) are refered to as Messiahs. Christian scholars, today, seem to not reject this, but do neither put emphasis on this, rather political aspect of the title. So called christian authorities do not like the idea of a politically radical Jesus. Imagined as King of Kings, heir to the throne of the Universal Monarch undermining the very fundament of the worldly hierarchy by denouncing Mammon, a metaphoric figure we may term today as the Capitarch. The prophet Muhammad do fully acknowledge Jesus as Christ, as anointed by God, and (if I recall correctly), as the verses 30-33 in the Sura of Mother Mary states, Where Isa as an infant are prophesising that he will certaintly die, but ressurect by the grace of Allah, thus conquer death. The problem for Christians, is that the saintly Muhammad's christology is in line with the heretic Presbyter Arius from Alexandria; who are seeing the Messiah as divine creation, and thus questioning the uncreated status of the second person of the trinity. As Islam is an arab expression for the undiluted peacetreaty between the One God and Humankind, from the beginning til the end of creation, Jesus should be regarded as a muslim, and not merely a prophet of Islam, as many "christians" like to put it. Muslims regard Jesus as Messiah too. The big question is what this title signify. The Son of God, may be hypothesised as an alternative eponym as Messiah. The Quran is not actually rejecting this eponym either, as the Quran do confirm the christian dogma of the immaculate conception; the core sign of the issue, Isa's Father is consequently perceived as Divine. I doubt Muslim scholars teach that Gabriel is the father...

People who associate themselves as Christians disagree with eachother on the issue. People who think of themselves as Jews do not either agree on the signifiance of Messiah. People who seek a Muslim way of life do not agree. We should acknowledge that. What we should agree upon is that Jesus can be regarded as a muslim and Muhammad a christian (Peace be upon all), if we are talking on the level of the signified, even in spite of those holding the power of the signifier, that is the outdated rule of the false theocracies' men holding the power to define. What should be considered is that a democratisation is occuring with the information increasingly awailable to us all. The way of authority to corrupt the message, to put us, peoples of different cultures, up against each other seem now to be the matter of revelation, and as it should be deemed, the peaceful (e.g. muslim) revolution. Islam does not simply mean subordination, as many westerners believe. That is totally out of context. The root of the word in semittic languages is 'peace'.. Salaam aleikum!----Xact (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of Ali translation

Recently, User:IntikhabNova has added some information and formatted it in a way that violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. However, there does appear to be a legitimate underlying concern. Xe and I have been having a conversation about this on my talk page (you can see it at User Talk:Qwyrxian#Jesus in Islam. It appears that xyr primary concern is that xe considered our use of the Yusuf Ali translations in the "Second Coming" section to be problematic. Xe claims that the original Arabic text does not mention Jesus/Isa in this case, and that if we used the Pickthall translation, we would see that. Thus, xe proposes (I think) that we show that other translations don't agree that Isa is mentioned here. Now, I don't read Arabic, nor do I know anything about different translations of the Qur'an. So, could I get some input from others on this issue? Is this a case where we should include more than one translation? Do we have reliable secondary sources (commentary) that shows common interpretations of this passage to which we could turn, thus avoiding WP:PRIMARY? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)