Talk:Halaib Triangle

Name

I've changed the representation of the name from Ḥalā'ib/حلائب to Ḥalāyib/حلايب thruout (with two exceptions explained below). I carry out research in the area, & locals use the form Ḥalāyib & do not recognise the version with the glottal stop/hamzah as correct. Further, the Egyptian government uses this spelling, as does the Sudanese. Most likely the spelling with an apostrophe/hamzah comes from a recognition that an intervocalic glottal stop often becomes /j/ in Egyptian & Sudanese colloquial dialects. The Hala'ib form is, then, hypercorrection. It does appear in some Arabic sources, but not generally in government sources (zero Sudanese state documents turn up for a حلائب Google search, & only one Egyptian state document), &, as already mentioned, it is rejected by locals. Further, this brings us in line with Arabic Wikipedia, which uses the (correct) form حلايب.

This is not an established place name in English. This is not a matter of retaining consistency with other English-language sources. In fact, of the two news stories quoted in the article, one spells the triangle "Halaib", the other "Halayeb". (In both cases, a previous editor had modified direct quotations to "Hala'ib". I have changed the spelling in both cases to reflect the original source.) Neither original uses the apostrophe.

Ultimately, I would like to move this page to Halayib Triangle. Pathawi (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Pathawi Dear User, if you are from Arabic origin, we can discuss it as you want, but the majority of the worldwide websites call it Halayeb. Best regards, Abd Elamid Elsayed Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed

For anyone following this, Abd Elamid has moved the conversation to my talk page. Pathawi (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Why? Discussions such as this shpuld not be decided elsewhere, in private, a consensus needs to be found here, on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I had not been thinking of my talk page as private, as anyone can access it, but you're right that it would have been better to have the conversation here or on Halayib's talk page. Part of the problem was that this reflects multiple edits on multiple related pages. I had replied to Abd Elamid's comments on Halayib's talk page, but he then replied more substantively on my personal page. I was trying to consolidate conversation locations, and thus opted for the most recent location of substantive comment. I made a poor call: I wasn't trying to make the conversation in any way private. Pathawi (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not copy the discussion from there to here? As long as the other editor agrees, and you clearly mark where it came from and when it starts and stops, there should be no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That conversation follows, with additional indentation, and with contact information eliminated. (Abd Elhamid: Feel free to replace that contact info. I removed it in case you were under the impression that my talk page was invisible to others.) Pathawi (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion copied from User talk:Pathawi

Halayeb triangle and Halayeb city. Dear Pathawi, We do not have to fight about Halayeb, because I speak Arabic and English fluently, being from Arabic ancestry (exactly from Egypt and my mother is from the Halayeb triangle) and I have been living in USA from 1998 (which means I speak excellent English).Beside that the major websites worldwide call it Halayeb. Feel free to contact me at ————— or if you live in USA at —————.Also on Whatsapp. Best regards, Abd Elhamid Elsayed

Abd Elhamid: A disagreement isn't a fight! But you'll have to excuse me: I'm sure you speak excellent Arabic, but that doesn't mean that you have a good knowledge of Romanisation, nor that you've read the Manual of Style. I strongly suggest you check out the link I posted on the Halayib Talk page. Then we may have something to discuss! Take care. Pathawi (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Pathawi : can we talk by phone.I was born in the Halayeb triangle, my mother is from there and my father is from northern Egypt. —————.

Best regards.

Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed

Hi, @Abdelhamidelsayed:. I know this wasn't intentional, but please don't edit other people's messages on Talk pages. I'm in the Sudan right now, so an international call really isn't very viable. Plus, I think it's best to solve these things within Wikipedia, so that other editors can follow what happened: This isn't a dispute between you and me—it's an issue for a collective encyclopædia. Have you read the Manual of Style page on Arabic that I directed you to? If so, do you think I'm misinterpreting something? Pathawi (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Abdelhamidelsayed: You wrote:

Please be informed that the name of many geographical areas in the Arabic countries have been published with the most known word in English, for example : Cairo, is in Arabic (Alqaheera) and another version is (Alkaheera).The first one is more near to the Arabic pronunciation, I can go on with hundred of examples. Be informed that the Arabic language has more sounds compared to the English language ( ح خ ع غ )sounds and lacks some sounds like (v). Please, I want to get an agreement as soon as possible regarding the name of Halayeb being my birth place and regarding the unsubstantiated information about the rebels that are willing to proclaim a new country in the Halayeb triangle, do you think, if they get to the light, they would have any chance against the dictatorship in Egypt? My last visit to Egypt was in 2010 and from that date and after my political views came to the the knowledge of the dictatorship regime, I was informed that I will be arrested the moment I touch the Egyptian soil. I can express my opinion, freely here in USA without fear, while the movement is secret in Egypt, and only one member beside me is in the USA, and he is my link to the people there.

So please, allow me to revert the name to Halayeb and the information and do not block me (you personally) or report me or block me in Wikipedia, if you have more power than me, please.

It is my area and my only interest in Wikipedia. Thank you, Best regards Abd Elhamid Elsayed

Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed

I don't think that you've read the page I've asked you to read from the Manual of Style. Again, it's this one: WP:MOSAR. You are correct that we use Cairo. Check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Basically, there are two guidelines: First, if there is one established name in English, use that. Thus, we use Cairo, Germany, China instead of *al-Qāhirah, *Deutschland, or *Zhōngguó. However, if there is no established name used in English, we use an established systematic transliteration. The MOS page I directed you to gives the Wikipedia standard for Arabic. We moved Halayib from *Hala'ib precisely because there was no established name in use and that transliteration was incorrect. On-line, you will find "Halayib", "Halayeb", and "Hala'ib". Given this diversity, it seems that the best choice is the "established systematic transliteration". Please read those pages. Pathawi (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

== Sorry ==

Sorry for the mistake, but I asked you kindly to not revert it, and you did, I am not willing to get into a fight through the internet, I am going to revert it again, it has been like this for more than a decade, I asked politely, you could have messaged me, before reverting it, beside that, with all the explanation that I gave you, you dump all my evidences and revert it.

If your English is 100 %, your Arabic as you say, can't compete with my Arabic, knowing that my English is 90% compared to you. it is a fact of sounds and phonetics.

Beside that you are in Sudan, get to a Sudanese and ask him to pronounce the word Halayeb ten time and then another guy and then another guy and then make your mind. The manual cannot apply to a language that is governed by a Holy book the QURAN, that only the very able in that language understand it after repeated reading.

And still, I am ready to have a discussion about such manual but our messages have to be moved to a normal mail server to make it easier to exchange our ideas, please contact me at

————— or by written messages at Whatsapp number —————.

Please do not revert Halayeb again, it has been like this more than a decade, and the web cites it more as Halayeb, compared to Halayib, till we get a common agreement between all people involved about it.

Best regards,

Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed

END OF COPIED DISCUSSION

The article should never have been moved away from Hala'ib Triangle in the first place

• Google hits:

• "Halayib" - 28,900
• "Halayeb" - 60,100
• "Hala'ib" - 2,370,000

My conclusion is that @Anthony Appleyard: should never have moved the article away from "Hala'ib Triangle". WP:COMMONNAME calls for the subject's common name as used in English. Local names should only be considered when there is no English-language name, so Anthony's rationale for the move was mistaken.

Anthony, given these facts, can you please move the article back to where it was for 9 years before you moved it? Or, at least tell me you have no objections, and i'll move it back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fast action! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:I know that the above comments are addressed specifically to Anthony Appleyard, but I made the request for the move, so I thought it wouldn't be inappropriate to comment. The naming convention policy at WP:USEENGLISH says that established names such as one would find in a reliable source are to be preferred. I know we all know what that means, but the page specifies "for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources". Google hits are an indicator, but as a source in and of themselves they're a problem: Nine years of Wikipedia's using the spelling with the apostrophe has led to its proliferation on-line, in no small part through mirrors or partial mirrors. I think, also, that the numbers you've got are a little off: Searching for hala'ib without quotes also returns everything for "halayib", "halayeb", "halaib", and a bunch of other stuff, as Google tries to correct a searcher's weird spelling. The unquote version gives me the 2.31 million number that you're getting. Beyond this, I can't reproduce your results. If I put the terms in quotes, I get:

• "hala'ib": 161,000
• "halayeb": 276,000
• "halayib": 29,300
• "halaib": 89,500

In print sources, I don't know how to gauge the currency of the different uses: None of them gives anything in a Google Ngram search, which is itself suggestive. In Google Scholar, "Halayib" turns up 119 hits, "Halayeb" 289, "Hala'ib" 236, "Halaib" 890. That doesn't seem like a cut and dry case to me for the prevalence of "Hala'ib" in reliable sources: If anything, it takes second place to Abd Elamin's preferred "Halayeb" in general Internet usage and to "Halaib" in scholarly work. Looking at the sources I have PDFs of, "Halayib" appears in the English version of the last Sudanese census. "Halayeb" appears in Lonely Planet Egypt. "Hala'ib" doesn't appear in anything I've got. "Halaib"—to my surprise—actually appears in several articles and books, including an article on Ababda history, the Handbook of Ancient Nubia, A History of the Beja Tribes, an ethnography on Beja people entitled Responsible Man, and a couple other Beja ethnographic articles. When we lack an established name, WP:USEENGLISH suggests going to an established system of Romanisation. The clear choice here would have been Halayib, as I proposed, but I had not searched for or given serious consideration to "Halaib" before I tried to figure out the results of your search.

I do not think it was a mistake to move this page, tho in reviewing the academic sources I now think that I may have been mistaken in my proposed target. I wish there had been more time for discussion. Pathawi (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would you put the phrase in quotes? It skews the results. Rechecking my results:

• Halayib with no quote marks - 29,800 [1]
• Halayeb with no quote marks - 74,100 [2]
• Halaib with no quote marks - 108,000 [3]
• Hala'ib with no quote marks - 1,950,000 [4]

It seems quite clear to me that Hala'ib is the preferred term in English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The search term ought to be in quotes for two reasons:

First, in order to search for the exact phrase, which is what's at question here, rather than everything Google thinks you might have meant to write.

Second, because the term in question has an apostrophe in the middle of it. So your first several hundred hits are probably all legitimate, but if you keep digging, you're also getting Wikipedia's page Siege of Baghdad (1258) because it has sources by Fattah Hala and I.B. Tauris. You're getting all kinds of irrelevant junk that has "hala" & "ib" somewhere in the page. This is also counting every single "halaib" hit as a "hala'ib" hit. It's throwing the numbers off wildly. It's simply incorrect.

If you want to compare exact phrases—which is what we're doing here—especially when one of them includes punctuation, you've got to put it in quotes. Please check this out if you're doubting me. I'm not skewing the results with quotation marks: I'm correcting them. Pathawi (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I see your logic, and it's persuasive.

• "Halayib" - 29,100 [5]
• "Hala'ib" - 43,300 [6]
• "Halayeb" - 77,000 [7]
• "Halaib" - 90,900 [8]

So you may be right that "Halaib" should be the title. What if we start an RfC to attract some more editors and see what happens? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I support this course of action. Pathawi (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The Name in Arabic is حلايب

Context: Many months ago, I proposed that this article be moved from Hala'ib Triangle to Halayib Triangle. The move was made. That move was reversed within the last twelve hours for reasons that can be found in the discussion above. In reversing that change, all (I think?) occurrences of ‹Halayib› in the article were changed to ‹Hala'ib›. I then changed back only those occurrences which were explicitly transliterations of the Arabic word, rather than uses of an English name. I also changed one occurrence of حلائب to حلايب. The former was added by an editor who was unfamiliar with the Arabic word based on the English name given in this article. I had hoped that these changes would be uncontroversial as they are—I think—matters of fairly straightforward fact. Beyond My Ken reversed those changes. In order to avoid edit warring, I'm explaining my changes here. I won't revert the reversions quickly in case my perception of uncontroversiality is amiss.

Both the Eyptian and Sudanese governments consistently use the spelling حلايب in their materials, with only one Egyptian exception that I was able to find many months ago; that page has since disappeared. For anyone who knows Arabic, I do not think that it is controversial that the Arabic name is حلايب. There is copious evidence on-line, including on our sister Arabic Wikipedia. (The word حلائب does occur in Arabic, so you'll get Google hits, but it does not refer to the city or the Triangle.) If we are transliterating Arabic, the appropriate MOS Romanisation is Ḥalāyib. It is not Ḥalā'ib. I think that this should also be uncontroversial: It is not different from saying that the Pinyin for the Mandarin name of China is "Zhōngguó", not "Qaina" or "China", even tho for obvious reasons we choose to call the page China rather than *Zhongguo.

I understand the desire for consistency within the article. However, I believe that a form of consistency which demands that the representation of the original language (whether in Arabic script or in Romanisation) match the chosen English name is backwards, & in this case leads to multiple inaccuracies.

I would like to:

1. remove the two places where this page asserts that the Arabic name is حلائب, as that's simply false;
2. employ the Romanisation Ḥalāyib when transliterating Arabic (but nowhere else until we have a decision on moving or not moving), as, again, I think that's false; and
3. restore the Romanisation of Egyptian Arabic from "Mosallas Ḥalāyeb" back to "Musallas Ḥalāyib", as the other transliteration is inconsistent & not in keeping with either the MOS or any scholarly materials that I'm aware of. Pathawi (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• OK by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should the page Hala'ib Triangle be moved to a new name or left as and where it is? Pathawi (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not a neutral party in this conversation, but I hope that the above framing of the question is sufficiently neutral. Briefly: The name of the region in question is uncontroversially مثلث حلايب Muthallath Ḥalāyib in Arabic (WP:MOSAR). For many years, the page was at Hala'ib Triangle. Last year, I proposed that it be moved to 'Halayib' and this was done. A couple days ago, it was moved back. In subsequent conversation, I believe that the other editor who called for the return move & I have come to have more similar perspectives; they proposed the RfC. I'll state below what I think the major options & questions are, but I want to be clear that I'm just speaking for myself:

• I believe that the representation ‹Hala'ib› is in an important sense wrong: The apostrophe is most frequently used in Romanisation of Arabic to represent the glottal stop. There is no such phoneme in this place name.
• But accuracy is a secondary consideration after common use in reliable sources (WP:NCUE). I argue that there is no good case for "Hala'ib" being the most common use in reliable sources. Looking at raw Google hits of names for the place that I know of, using quotation marks, I find:

1. "halaib": 98,500
2. "halayeb": 73,900
3. "hala'ib": 54,200
4. "halayib": 28,200

(Your results might vary: I am doing the search from the Sudan. I think that people get different results from different countries.)

The version with the apostrophe comes in third place. We get a similar ranking if we try to stick to reliable sources by just looking in Google Scholar (again, your results may vary):

1. "halaib": 890
2. "halayeb": 289
3. "hala'ib": 236
4. "halayib": 119

Thus, I think "Hala'ib" is unjustifiable, and should go. For me, the reasonable options are "Halaib" (most common in search results, both in Google and Google Scholar), and "Halayib" (most similar to the standard Romanisation for Arabic that Wikipedia employs).

• I think that we're looking at a case of "divided usage" WP:DIVIDEDUSE. WP:NCUE warns against overreliance on search engines: 'Search-engine hits are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another, but can suggest that no single term is predominant in English.' I think that that is the case that we've got. (Note that WP:NCUE doesn't identify simple majority as common usage, identifying a case of 60% versus 40% as one of divided usage.)
• However, it's also possible that we're looking at a case of "no established usage".
• I think that the WP:NCUE recommendations should be interpreted as the following:
  • If this is a case of true divided usage, we could interpret the directive to '[give] more weighting to verifiable reliable sources' to mean that a clear majority in scholarly sources is more indicative of common usage than is a clear majority in general search engine results. In this case, we should go with "Halaib".
  • WP:NCUE says: 'When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version.' If we don't agree with the interpretation of the previous bullet point & don't think that other guidelines apply, then the article should revert to "Halayib".
  • If instead we think that we're dealing with too few sources to identify any usage as common, we should follow the standard romanisation convention, & go with "Halayib".

Another editor has in the past day been pushing for "Halayeb", but I am not able to present that editor's argument. You can see it elsewhere on this page.

I wish I could make a good case for "Halayib" but I haven't convinced myself with the above. I think that there's no justification for leaving this page at "Hala'ib" and that "Halaib" is the clearest choice. There's probably a lot that I haven't thought of, & I look forward to others' comments. Pathawi (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Halaib - The CIA Fact Book uses "Halaib Triangle", and that's authoritative enough for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• I do see one benefit to "Hala'ib" over "Halaib": the apostrophe eliminates the possibility of seeing the "ai" combination in "Halaib" as a dipthong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

But that just replaces one mistaken impression (diphthong) for another (glottal stop). Pathawi (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Halaib per WP:COMMONNAME. Of course, the standard romanization would be nice, but once we omit the diacritic dot for the first letter, we're entering the realm of common spelling anyway, so there's no rules but only usage. The arguments below pro-Halayeb at one point made me smile, when they try to explain their point based on the "pronunciation of ي", whereas the main point of controversy rather lies in the representation of unspelled kasrah :) As for "Hala'ib", that's quite unintuitive for anyone who is acquainted with the use of apostrophe for hamza. And also not the prime choice based on the Google counts. –Austronesier (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec) For what it's worth:

• The Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Hala'ib Triangle" [9]
• As mentioned above, the CIA World Factbook uses "Halaib region" [10],[11]
• Google Books search on "Halaib Triangle": [12] (12 pages of results, asks "Did you mean Hala'ib Triangle?")
• Google Books search on "Hala'ib Triangle: [13] (9 pages of results)
• Google Books search on "Halayib Triangle": [14] (3 pages of results, asks "Did you mean Halayeb Triangle?")
• Google Books search on "Halayeb Triangle": [15] (2 pages of results)

• The clear losers here are "Halayib Triangle" and "Halayeb Triangle", with only 3 and 2 pages of results.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the Encyclopedia Brittanica is probably the offender that got us this awful name in the first place, then: The original 2004 article used this spelling & was unsourced. Damned Brittanics… Pathawi (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• I just want to note that I dropped a pointer to this discussion on the talk page of the editor who created this article [16]. My intent was not to canvass, but to find our their reasons for making their initial choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• That would be me. I have no preference, or expertise at all to offer here! To answer Beyond My Ken's question, the existing redlink I was creating 'from' was spelt this way, and if I recall correctly most/some/all the sources I used concurred (I often create articles from a desire to eradicate a redlink in another article). I wasn't aware of any difference of opinion or controversy. So in summary, there is no linguistic reason for using this spelling in the first instance, and I have zero weight to add to any one side! Grunners (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input, it's appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• It's been a week since I posted the RfC. Among people who've joined the conversation, we have three supporters of Halaib, one of Halayeb, & an invitee who has no preference. All supporters of Halaib have engaged the arguments for Halayeb in some degree (one only in passing, two more fully). There's been no argument for Halayeb or response in six days. I propose that it's time to follow WP:RM#CM and give this conversation another seven days. At that time, if there's no further advocacy for Halayeb, I think we can consider that we've reached what I'm going to call consensus through attrition. Ideally, we can reach actual unanimity (not a requirement, but a nice aspiration). If we are at a stalemate, we can consider other options. I don't think we should leave this page at a title that everyone agrees is undesirable: That seems like the worst result of a strict consensus process. If there's no objection, I'll mark this as a controversial requested move tomorrow (I hope that's not rushing things). Pathawi (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree to go ahead with a move discussion. Typically, this will result in input from more uninvolved editors. And just hope that it won't lead to the most undesirable output (not moved because of lack of conensus about the move target, even though most agree that the current title is inapt). –Austronesier (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I just want to point out that RfCs generally run for 30 days before being closed. I suggest waiting for that time period for more participation before taking any other steps. There's no life-or-death situation here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Listing this tomorrow if there's no objection. Pathawi (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Halayeb, it is pronounced Halayeb from a capable Arabic language native, very good English language ( living in USA from 1998, so I speak English very good). It is not Halayib, understand.

HALAYEB Halayeb - understand, it is Halayeb when it is spoken in Arabic not Halayib ; the difference is in how the Arabic letter ي is pronounced. Do you understand ? Dear USER: I am asking kindly that you do not revert my change of Halayeb to any another name, I do accept that you deleted my unproven section about the rebels that are still secret till today and only few people know about this matter and I am one of them who can speak freely because I live in USA and another person who is my link to the people living in Halayeb triangle. Do you think, rebels can proclaim themselves in Egypt with the dictatorship there and ask for a referendum, a free referendum, in Halayeb triangle, without being caught and imprisoned and then executed without a trial ?

If you find another user who understand Arabic better than me and surely you will find an English language better than me, then, I am ready to accept the change of name: must be better than me in both Arabic and English. If you are targeting me as you did in the past, I am ready to fight till I get blocked from Wikipedia and then, I will continue to edit as an anonymous. So let us ask people about which is exact : Halayeb or Halayib with the above condition : better Arabic and English than me.

And for your knowledge : there are signs that can be found above or below an Arabic letter and those change how the letter is pronounced. So the name in Arabic is حلايب - ح - ل - ا - ي - ب ح = h ل = l ا = a ي = i or y ( which are very similar in pronunciation, just read Andi and Andy) while the ي in Arabic here is pronounced just like ye ب = b So according to the rules used by some people who do not understand Arabic - why there is an extra (a) between the (h) and (l) in the English word ?

I will revert your edit and I will fight for the correct name as it is pronounced in Arabic, just for one cause : I am from Halayeb triangle. And why the name remained almost the last decade and more as Halayeb ? If you want to fight after all this facts and proofs, I am ready. I can be reached at +1 2622275793 and abdelhamidelsayed@hotmail.com Best regards, Abd Elhamid Elsayed Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed

Once again, you're not understanding. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. The name of the place IN ENGLISH is what matters, not what the locals call it in Arabic.

You've been trying to make this change for 10 YEARS. It's time to stop before you get blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

HALAYEB - I AM REQUESTING THE NAME TO BE CHANGED TO HALAYEB FROM ALL THE OTHER VERSION, IT IS PRONOUNCED HALAYEB IN ARABIC, UNDERSTAND. NOT HALAYIB

HALAYEB - understand, it is HALAYEB when it is spoken in Arabic not HALAYIB ; the difference is in how the Arabic letter (ي) is pronounced. Do you understand ?

If you find another user who understand Arabic better than me ( who cares about HALAYEB ) and surely you will find an English language better than me, then, I am ready to accept the change of name: must be better than me in both Arabic and English. . So let us ask people about which is exact : HALAYEB or HALAYIB with the above condition : better Arabic and English than me.

And for your knowledge : there are signs that can be found above or below an Arabic letter and those change how the letter is pronounced. So the name in Arabic is {حلايب - ح - ل - ا - ي - ب}

          First letter = H (ح) 

          Second letter = L (ل) 

          Third letter = A (ا)

          Fourth letter = I or Y (ي)( which are very similar in pronunciation, just read Andi and Andy) while the ي in Arabic here is pronounced just like ye

          Fifth letter = B (ب)

Do you understand that it is 5 letters in Arabic, so why it is six letters in English ?

So according to the rules used by some people who do not understand Arabic - why there is an extra (a) between the (H) and (L) in the English word HALAYEB?

I will fight for the correct name as it is pronounced in Arabic, just for one cause : I am from Halayeb triangle. And why the name remained almost the last decade and more as Halayeb ? If you want to discuss after all this facts and proofs, I am ready. I can be reached at +1 2622275793 and abdelhamidelsayed@hotmail.com Best regards, Abd Elhamid Elsayed Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed

Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed Abd Elhamid Elsayed

• Koln, four letters, Cologne, 7 letters; Muscova, 7 letters, Moscow, six letters; Munchen, 7 letters, Munich, 6 letters. The English common names of these cities differ in the number of letters than the native name, because the number of letters used is totally irrelevant, as is your argument. The English common name does not have to be a direct transliteration of the native name, it's whatever the place is commonly called. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Nor does pronunciation have anything to do with it either. The English and the French both call the capital of France "Paris", but the English pronounce it "Par-is" and the French pronounce it "Par-ee". How the name is pronounced in Arabic is not determinative of what the English common name is.
  Again, please read WP:COMMONNAME, and when you finish, read WP:I didn't hear that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Abd Elhamid: There are three issues that you should be paying attention to, but thus far you seem not to be:

1. Note that the Wikipedia page for مصر is Egypt, not *Masr or *Misr. Why is this? This relates to the first principle that is at play here: That we use the common English name when such a name exists. Beyond My Ken has linked you to WP:COMMONNAME, which gives the general principle. I've linked you to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which deals with this specific issue. You really should read these.
2. A claim I made a year ago was that there was no common name. At this point I think it's possible that I was wrong. However, it is only when there is no common name that the arguments I had been using for "Halayib" and those you're using for "Halayeb" matter at all. Here, we're getting into the question of what constitutes the best Romanisation.
   1. There is actually already a policy for Arabic, & I've directed you to it before: WP:MOSAR.
   2. The chief principle in most Romanisations is a one-for-one correspondence between phonemes & graphemes. As you surely know, the Arabic script for Arabic & the Latin script for English do not operate on the same principles: Arabic mostly only represents consonants & long vowels. English… is complicated. When transliterating, we try to make sure that each phoneme of the spoken language is represented: not each grapheme of the written language. As you surely know, if you were to write the name of the Triangle with the حركات, it would be حَلَايِبْ (pausal form: you can handle the إعراب however you want: doesn't change the argument). Arabic has those حركات precisely because the written language does not (usually) represent every phoneme of the spoken language. The Qur'ān employs those حركات because the spoken phonemes are important! So when you ask where the "a" after the "h" in "Halayib" or "Halayeb" or "Hala'ib" comes from, the answer is this: The same place that the first فتحة in حَلَايِبْ comes from.
   3. The key point you keep raising, however, is that ‹e› is the "right" representation of the final vowel in the name. Again, we should follow WP:MOSAR in order to retain consistency thruout Wikipedia. If you think WP:MOSAR is wrong, the thing to do is to try to argue for a change in the Manual of Style. However, there is pretty much full agreement that formal Arabic (فصحى) has three vowel values, each of which has two lengths: /a/, /i/, and /u/. In written Arabic, the short forms are فتحة for /a/, كسرة for /i/, and ضمّة for /u/. Long forms are written by adding lengthening letters: ألف or ألف مقصورة for /aː/, ياء for /iː/, & واو for /uː/. Note that when you use full حركات, the same short vowel signs are used before these lengthening consonants. That is: كسرة and كسرة followed by ياء are the same vowel quality with different lengths. Recall the principle that there should generally be a one-for-one correspondence between phonemes & graphemes. For this reason, virtually all scholarly sources on Arabic use the same Latin letter to represent both the short & long vowel, & then mark length separately. The WP:MOSAR transliteration takes what I think is the most common tack of using a macron to distinguish the two: ‹i› versus ‹ī›.

      You feel that ‹e› is a better representation of كسرة in this location than ‹i› is. But when the vowel is long you've actually chosen to use ‹i›, as in your name: Abd Elhamid. Can you see how this is inconsistent? Note that in English, both ‹e› and ‹i› have many, many different corresponding sounds! ‹e› can be the sound in bet, or cafe, or beef. It is often "silent" at the end of a word. It combines with other vowels or consonants to make all manner of weird sounds. There is no inherent sound that corresponds to the letter ‹e›. Many Egyptians cannot distinguish between the /ɛ/ vowel of "better" & the /ɪ/ vowel of "bitter". Because short Arabic /i/ in Egyptian Arabic is frequently realised as [ɪ] in unstressed positions, it has become very common to represent this /i/ as ‹e›, as you do in Abd Elhamid elsayed. (For others not familiar with Egyptian Arabic: The definite article in Egypt is realised as /il/ not /al/.) I'm not saying that you can't make this vocalic distinction when you speak English! I've never heard you speak English. But your writing choices follow this common Egyptian practice, based on the long-standing perceptions of other people who are not able to make this distinction in English phonology. What this leads to, however, is an inconsistency between representation of the short forms of Arabic vowels & the long forms. It may serve just fine for everyday usage, but it's not inherently more correct (again: there is no fundamental sound for ‹e› in English!), & it's a worse usage for anything that tries to be a consistent transliteration.

3. Finally: You keep claiming that this page was located at Halayeb Triangle for more than ten years. This is not accurate. The page was created as Hala'ib Triangle in 2004, & it has retained that unfortunate name for most of this time. Since 2009, you have multiple times moved the page without discussion to Halayeb Triangle, but each time it's been moved back. I actually agree with you that "Halayeb" is a better choice than "Hala'ib" for multiple reasons (tho I don't think it's the best choice), but where you've really failed here is that you have not engaged community process. In this regard, I think reading Beyond My Ken's second suggestion, WP:I didn't hear that, is really worth your while. No productive change will come about if you don't listen to others, engage in actual dialogue with them, & follow community process. I very, very strongly recommend that you read the articles we've suggested to you before continuing the conversation. I don't think this will be productive until you do, & I think you'll find that your changes just keep getting reverted if you don't engage with what people are saying to you. Pathawi (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to ALLAH, you wrote in full Arabic

                   حَلَايِبْ

and this is pronounced HALAYEB. You missed a (fatha) on the letter ( ا ). It should be written as it is pronounced and not follow a stupid rule that some one put in place without being a professional Arabic knowledgeable, this means that I do not accept that this rule to be applied on HALAYEB. This city is not famous like PARIS and other cities you mentioned, so it should be written as the local inhabitants pronounce it, not some one who wants to fuss about it.

Why should some strangers should be involved before the local inhabitants, the Egyptians and the Sudanese.

Get yourself on a plane go and visit HALAYEB and ask people there to say it in front of your ears, may be you change your thinking.

Do not venture in my name explanation, I kept it this way because the stupid guy who translated my name decade ago was an ignorant when my first passport was issued and at that time, my father said it is not a big deal, I kept it this way for all my engineering degrees certificates so there is no difference, and this is due to someone IGNORANCE. My name should be : ABD ELHAMEED ELSAYED, so do not fuss with my name incorrectly trying to make your opinion prevail.

I have been using my true name because I have nothing to fear, posted my phone number, my electronic mail, to show my correctness and honesty and I DO NOT HIDE UNDER A FAKE USER NAME.

Read : MARK and MARQ and MARC and take your own decision. No body or better to say, only few people who are in Egypt and Sudan write about it frequently and the majority of them write it, (may we say all) HALAYEB and with the expansion of the internet users in Egypt and Sudan, more people will write it HALAYEB,

When people are presented with killing facts and remain obtuse, I do not care any more, how many people worldwide care about HALAYEB ? Not even 100000. And thanks to ALLAH, Google is searched more than Wikipedia, so the name HALAYEB on the long run will prevail. Good luck in convincing Google to change it in their maps from HALAYEB.

Have we involved the local inhabitants in this discussion ? NO. They should have a say

Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed

1. There should not be a فتحة on the ألف. The appropriate mark would be a سكون, but that's actually redundant, so I left it out, as most people do and, indeed, as you'll find in any copy of the Qur'ān. Be more careful about what writing practices you consider wrong.
2. I have been to Halayib & have many strong friendships there. Baruuk aneeb kittanaheeb? Ani umusallasiib gwida da akteen.
3. There is no standing question about how people pronounce the vowels in the name of the place. The disagreement is on representation. I think I've explained this issue adequately, but I don't have the impression that you're actually paying attention to what I'm saying.
4. Guess I'm sorry I used the version of your name that you've written about twenty times on this Talk page? Pathawi (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

My request.

How long would take this discussion before my request is granted? 2020 11 12 10:04 am Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed

Unless you have a consensus for the change, it will not be granted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Who are the people involved here, I want to contact them to end this discussion to post some new information about HALAYEB, I see that Beyond My Ken, Pathawi and me care only during this time. Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed

Granting requests isn't the way this works. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopædia-building project. We have to work together. That means paying attention to what one another are saying & finding compromises. I do not believe that you've actually paid attention to anything that Beyond My Ken or I have said. You've also fairly frequently in this conversation been rather insulting, & have insisted on confrontational ways of trying to get the name changed to the version you want rather than engaged in a collaborative process to figure out the best solution we can work out collectively. Consensus-building can take time, & you don't always get your way. However, I'll note that your other approach has taken eleven years & still hasn't brought about the result you want. Maybe another way of engaging this is worth a try. Please: Read the things we've suggested to you. Read what our comments actually say, rather than looking for weird ways to take umbrage or nit-pick. Then we may actually have grounds for a conversation.

As for who's involved: At this time, only three of us are participating in this conversation. I posted a Request for Comments, so others who are interested may get involved as well in the coming days. We'll see. Pathawi (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Hala'ib Triangle → Halaib Triangle – The name Halaib Triangle is used more frequently in scholarly material than Hala'ib Triangle, & thus by WP:COMMONNAME has a better claim to the place name in Wikipedia. Even if we were to determine that this was a case of WP:DIVIDEDUSE, Hala'ib would not be a reasonable consideration, as it misrepresents the Arabic place name. There is extensive discussion on Talk:Hala'ib Triangle, but it involves relatively few discussants. All but one of these support Halaib. None supports the current name. The conversation on the talk page wrapped up (or took a break?) three weeks ago. Pathawi (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The above discussion revolved around an admittedly biased editor trying to take ownership of the article; Abd openly admits to having a biased position on matters related to the Triangle. (On top of that, it was deliberately run without putting it through the RM process, which is always a bad sign.) O.N.R. ^(talk) 10:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Halayib also acceptable. Srnec (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I'm OK with Halaib or current Hala'ib, but Halayib is not well supported by source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I'm OK with Halaib or Hala'ib, (or maybe Halayeb since its listed that way in Google Maps). PyroFloe (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Bidhaawyeet Name: Original Research

This isn't published anywhere I know of, so inappropriate for the article. I do research on Bidhaawyeet (the Beja language). According to Bishaari people I've talked with, the original name in Bidhaawyeet is Awliib or Aylaab (depending on dialect), referring to a particular kind of grass used for grazing livestock which the area is famous for. I haven't been able to identify a botanical name for the grass variety, & don't have any further information on it. A similar name appears in EM Roper's 1928 handbook of Bidhaawyeet, but referring to the land west of the Red Sea Hills. Arabic Ḥalāyib is taken to be a distortion of the Bidhaawyeet name. In contemporary Bidhaawyeet, people refer to the place as Halaayib, which is from the Arabic Ḥalāyib. Pathawi (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Just found a passage in a book in Bidhaawyeet which identifies the grass as ooliib with the definition: 'the grass goats like best; it is said to cure diseases'. No reference to the region, tho. Pathawi (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

"The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11 § The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle until a consensus is reached. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 17:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)