This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
sahib-us-saif-w-al-qalam is translated as 'master of sword and the qalam'. Saif is sword , qalam is qalam. I fail to understand the revert war. The reverted says " translation is from source, no need to change it". Sources may be mistaken, especially in foreign languages translations. By the way, even the arabic term was misspelled. Which speaks about the quality of the source Loew Galitz (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Google shows the most common rendering of the title is " master of the sword and the pen", not qalam, so I am changing accordingly. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
It's pedantic but I reverted simply because I didn't want there to be creative liberties with translations, and the 'safe' option would be to use exactly what was provided by the source (which is an Oxford University Press publication so I don't think it's a low-quality source). Yes, saif means sword and qalam means pen so a correct translation should reflect that order, but given that either way the translation would mean the same thing I didn't think it was more important than following what the source said. Plus, qalm can't be really considered a 'mispelling' given that this is a transliteration and there are multiple ways of romanizing a word from another language.
That being said, I think I agree with using the common rendering Google suggests, I just felt the above explanation was worth giving. Gowhk8 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I understand that to a layman the word order looks like an insignificant change, but this is a title, meaning it is a fixed formula. That is why I was insistent. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
