Talk:Nimr al-Nimr

Recent arrest

AJE Reuters. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Title

Should we rename it as Sheikh Nimr?--88.111.129.157 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Picture

Shall we include a picture?--88.111.129.157 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes please, arrange and include the picture. Also please keep in mind for any copyvio.Nannadeem (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

On his website it says "Copyright is reserved. You may share or republish if you include an active link to the original" Does that mean we can you a picture from their and just link to it?--88.111.129.157 (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The current portrait is highly stylized and even dramatic. By no means is it appropriate for a reference article. It should be taken down immediately and replaced with a photograph that comports with Wikipedia's standards.

Agree completely. It's a hagiographic portrait. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Will delete.

Emphrase, to answer your question, the stated reason for the article on Kim Jong Un using an illustration is that there is not an available image of Kim that is not copyrighted; the same is not true of Mr. al-Nimr. As well, the present image of Mr. al-Nimr is a very close rendering of a copyrighted image that may well violate Wikipedia's standards, but that's not my objection to the image. The sketch of Kim depicts him expressionless while the image of Mr. al-Nimr depicts him orating in exhortation, finger extended, and holding a copy of the Koran, i.e. the image is intended to evoke a feeling from the reader rather than simply conveying Mr. al-Nimr's physical appearance. It's naked propaganda! Certainly there should be an image of the subject, but better to have no image than one that is persuasive. Emphrase, I would like you to research the artist behind the illustration; his name is Abbas Goudarzi.

Nafs al-Zaki

Shall we mention that people claim he is the Nafs al-Zakki--88.111.129.157 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Logically and rationally there is no problem in citing such link. If the linkage reference holds a secondary and/or tertiary source, then it would become verifiable from reliable sources in addition to personal claim. Nannadeem (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Project banner merge

Can we merge the project banners?--88.111.129.157 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Rename request

Can we rename please to Sheikh Nimr as that is what he is most commonly referred to as?--88.104.136.214 (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Support the proposal. Nannadeem (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you know how we would go about making this change?--88.104.136.214 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You can see this HELP:MOVE. Nannadeem (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC

It looks like this is  Done--Iady391 (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

For an unknown reason page moved without discussion.

16:46, 2 January 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Nimr al-Nimr ‎ (Foreach n everyday moved page Talk:Sheikh Nimr to Talk:Nimr al-Nimr over redirect) 16:46, 2 January 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+47)‎ . . N Talk:Sheikh Nimr ‎ (Foreach n everyday moved page Talk:Sheikh Nimr to Talk:Nimr al-Nimr over redirect) (current) 16:46, 2 January 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+42)‎ . . N Sheikh Nimr ‎ (Foreach n everyday moved page Sheikh Nimr to Nimr al-Nimr over redirect) 16:46, 2 January 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Nimr al-Nimr ‎ (Foreach n everyday moved page Sheikh Nimr to Nimr al-Nimr over redirect) Centerone (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Related events?

[1] concerning a relation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, related, I'm not sure if the Ali mentioned in the article is the same person. I personally think that this situation may make him worthy of an article of his own. Centerone (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the linked press article, is a nephew (?) of the subject of the Wikipedia article.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, and what I was saying is that there was a nephew with the name of Ali mentioned in the article who was arrested: " Four people were arrested, including al-Nimr's nephew, 'Ali Ahmad al-Faraj, aged 16, who was arrested on 22 March.[4] The police started tracking al-Nimr in order to arrest him and tried to take his children hostage.[5] By 1 April, a total of 35 people had been arrested and security forces installed checkpoints on roads to al-Awamiyah. As of 1 April 2009, al-Nimr had not been arrested.[2]" I'm just not sure if this is the same Ali or not because there is a name difference and I didn't know if that was being of cultural issues or errors in journalism. Centerone (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously Nimr al-Nimr has more than one nephew: 'Ali Ahmad al-Faraj was arrested on 22 March 2009; Ali Mohammed Baqir al-Nimr was arrested on 14 February 2014. Boud (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

sect or denomination

"Sect" ist always pejorative. It is a derogatory term. Religious denomination is the better term. Sunni Islam is a denomination of Islam.--91.10.30.165 (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source on this? Several large articles use both sect and denomination with no objection to the use of the term. The general article on sects seems more well-developed than the article on religious denominations. Centerone (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Appeal by UN Secretary General

I have seen a post on SK Official page, an Urdu language (+English) Shia news channel page, which discloses that United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has appealed to Saudi Arab to halt the execution of Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr. Could someone please provide a news link from Western/European Media.Nannadeem (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Besides other observations, I have noticed frequent change by editing to title from "Sheikh to Yeezy". Thus page requires protection. Nannadeem (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Nannadeem, diffs? Mhhossein (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• 18:09, 3 January 2016 96.241.167.120 "Setting page ERROR" - corrected 3 min later
• 17:09, 3 January 2016 188.70.62.42 "Yeezy" - corr 3 min later
• 13:02, 3 January 2016 91.140.151.46 (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) "Yeezy" - corr 1 min later
• 12:38, 3 January 2016 91.140.151.46 (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) "Yeezy" - corrected 8 min later
• 12:36, 3 January 2016 91.140.151.46 (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) "Zaga" - self-corrected less than 1 minute later

The page was viewed about 28000 times 3 Jan under its pre-rename name: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Sheikh_Nimr + 8000 times under the present name http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nimr_al-Nimr . That makes about 36000 views/day (lower limit, since 3 Jan UTC has not yet finished), i.e. 25 view/minute. So about 400 people downloaded the vandalised versions. The summary box at the top has a high probability of being read.

I think Nannadeem is right about semi-protection - all the edits above are by IP editors. This page is related to a major geopolitical issue of the present epoch that is attracting a lot of attention - I think that protecting Wikipedia's reputation is justified. Boud (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ROUGH:

• "Unregistered editors should be making very few quality contributions to the article compared to the amount of vandalism coming from unregistered editors. The negative effects of semi-protection on discouraging positive contributions should be more of a concern than the positive effect of decreasing vandalism." - The other IP edits seem to me about 80% constructive, with a few poor-quality edits. This argues against semi-protection.
• "So, 5% is the level of vandalism to be expected, and semi-protection should not be applied in this case." From 12:36 to 18:09 I count 38 edits, i.e. 5 edits out of 38 = 13% of edits during those 5.5 hours were vandalism. I haven't checked beyond that, and my time frame was chosen from the first to the last edit (so it's biased). So this is only a rough estimate of the vandalism proportion - about a factor of about 2-3 higher than normal. This argues in favour of semi-protection.
• "Is the problem on a high-profile, widely watchlisted page?" - It's definitely high-profile right now - 36000 views so far on 3 Jan according to stats.grok.se - see above. This argues in favour of semi-protection.
• "Does the problem have a detrimental effect on how Wikipedia looks to the public?" - I don't know if "Yeezy" means something in Arabic or Persian/Farsi, but it's not well-known in English, so my feeling is that it makes Wikipedia look bad.

Anyone can make a request at WP:RFP if s/he feels that this is justified, e.g. using my analysis here or your own analysis - first read through WP:ROUGH. Boud (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Edits added to clarify nature of arguments. Boud (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "Yeezy" is a joke. I don't think it means anything apart from being similar to Jesus. It's one of Kanye West's nicknames. Centerone (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So probably it only makes Wikipedia look childishly provocative - which is not so good. So probably: this argument is ("makes Wikipedia look bad") goes in favour of semi-protection. Boud (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Some more vandalism edits (not all, just a few that I noticed by chance):

• 00:53, 4 January 2016 198.234.106.202 - corrected 2 mins later - IP blocked 14 minutes later
• 01:30, 4 January 2016 User:Anoningotham (Tag: Visual edit) - correction in less than 1 minute by ClueBot NG; account blocked 39 minutes later
• 00:00, 4 January 2016 User:Fuckedaddy (Tag: Visual edit) - correction in less than 1 minute by ClueBot NG; account blocked 9 minutes later

The ones at 00:00 and 01:30 were correctly and rapidly handled by ClueBot NG; and the new accounts were blocked reasonably quickly; the 00:53 edit was handled by a human user, and the account quickly blocked too. So robots and humans are handling the vandalism reasonably well, at least by this anecdotal evidence. This probably argues against semi-protection, since a robot + a human have handled the vandalism quickly. Boud (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Demonstrations

I think we'd better to have a separate section on 'demonstrations'. Is there any idea against this? Mhhossein (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That would come under "Nimr al-Nimr#Reactions to execution" I think, which is already getting a bit long. 220 of ^Borg 02:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)"

220: As you see I've already made a subsection for it. I aimed to gather all the materials related to demonstrations under that subsection. We have to do reflect the protests. Mhhossein (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't check before I answered. The protests may actually of more notability than the opinions of lots of politicians & NGOs ! 220 of ^Borg 06:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate article is in order (Execution of Nimr al-Nimr). Charles Essie (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Charles Essie: I was exactly thinking of that. Do you aim to create that? Mhhossein (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Split: arguments for/against

The guide for a split is WP:SPLIT.

• length - my estimate is 30 kb of readable prose: "< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division";
• content - the execution has led to formally breaking diplomatic relations between two major states in the region, this is reliably sourced as an objective argument of the separate notability; on the other hand, a big part of the post-execution section of the article is about blabla - it's sourced blabla from notable people/organisations, but is it enough to determine long-term notability?

If someone decides to be bold anyway, or after rough consensus to split, you could check the WP:CORRECTSPLIT suggestions for doing it carefully (e.g. the edit summary is important for copyright traceability). Boud (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Execution of Nimr al-Nimr

@Boud: I prepared a separate article for the execution section in my draft space. What is your idea?Saff V. (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 Saudi Arabia mass execution

It appears an article has already been created and now it just needs to be expanded. Charles Essie (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can change the title of this article to Nimr execution and in the new article mention mass execution.Saff V. (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The name "al-Nimr"

When the name "al-Nimr" is the first word in a sentence, is the letter "a" upper-case or lower-case? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Arabic#Definite_article - ""Al-" and its variants (ash-, ad-, ar-, etc.) are always written in lower case (unless beginning a sentence), ..." See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Arabic#Definite_article for more details. Boud (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good question. IIRC when "the first word in a sentence," it should be upper-case "Al-Nimr", but I think if it isn't preceded by another name then it should also be upper-case. (Wrong apparently) I thought Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies would help, but I cant find it mentioned.
al-Qaeda, however, seems to have lower case except at start of line. Even the page name is lower cased. (looks like it's been answered by Boud though!) 220 of ^Borg 03:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

execution method

Is there a Reliable Source on the form of execution? Were his hand lopped off and then his head by a sword?

The press reports I've seen did not specify his form of execution. For instance, The New York Times reported that the 47 people -- including Nimr al-Nimr -- were executed either by firing squad or beheading but did not specify which of the condemned received on or the other forms.[2] Siberian Husky (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Almost certainly beheading, firing squads/shooting executions are rare in Saudi Arabia. [3] Christophervincent01 (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Shia "Islam"

Why is he under "Muslim", when Shia Islam is not "Islam", more of Shiaism. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What you called "Shiaism" is categorized as a branch of Islam. --Z 22:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What... exactly... did you mean by that, Atcovi?Centerone (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Atcovi: He was clearly a Shia Muslim. Mhhossein (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Is This a Biased Article?

This article is mostly showing only one side of the related events. Farhan (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Example..?142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

For example, following is the original story in references number 12 and 13:

12 “Nimr Baqir Al-Nimr and his followers opened fire on security officers who tried to arrest them at around 4 P.M. Sunday, said Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki, security spokesman of the Ministry of Interior. They were arrested after the vehicle they were escaping in crashed into a patrol car, Al-Turki said. He said Al-Nimr was wounded when officers responded to the gunfire. He was arrested and taken to hospital. Al-Nimr will be prosecuted on charges of sedition, Al-Turki added.”

13 “When the aforementioned person and those with him tried to resist the security men and initiated shooting and crashed into one of the security patrols while trying to escape, he was dealt with in accordance with the situation and responded to in kind and arrested after he was wounded in his thigh," the state news agency reported, citing Major General Mansour Turki, an Interior Ministry spokesman.”

-But in the introduction this is what the editors wrote:

“On 8 July 2012 Saudi police shot al-Nimr in the leg and arrested him in what police described as an "exchange of gunfire.[12][13].”

The story of his arrest in the mentioned sources is different, police responded to the gunfire, and there are more details but the editors are using only one side of the story. Farhan (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The authorities did describe it as an "exchange of gunfire" and this is a fact. However, including the entire police narrative in the article would be massively undue and POV, because the Saudi authorities are not an RS on the issue of what actually happened. Moreover, the police account is disputed on the Arabic wiki for al-Nimr. If you read arabic, I think it would be OK to include both the allegations and counter-allegations in the article - just NOT in the lede. They don't belong in the introduction.-Gucci81.88.116.27 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. See [4] 107.72.97.198 (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Portrait

Please stop restoring the picture in the infobox. It is stylized and comes from a hagiographic Iranian source, against wikipedia guidelines. A photograph should be used instead. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't referenced any guidelines. The source of the image is not relevant. You have not provided an alternative image.

Following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images, we have:

• "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic"
  • Sheikh al-Nimr is best known for his speeches. The image File:Sheikh Nemer Baqir Al-Nemer by Talkhandak.jpg shows him speaking, and his facial muscles portray strong emotion or emphasis. The reliable sources in this article document him as a speaker. The fact that his speeches motivated and/or provoked citizens and/or the KSA/Iranian governments are RS'd facts as far as the article is concerned. Al-Nimr's face in the drawing does not look unnaturally biased to make him look better. So this criterion seems to be satisfied to me.
• "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred." A drawing of al-Nimr being beheaded or hanged would have strong shock value. A drawing of him speaking and conveying strong emotion does not have shock value. The shock value criterion against an image does not argue against this image. An alternative image has not been provided.
• "Sometimes it is impossible to avoid the use of a lead image with perceived shock value if the topic itself is of that nature". If anyone is shocked by a speaker speaking with strong emotion, then this criterion would seem to override that. Al-Nimr is not known as a quiet academic describing ways in which democracy could evolve in KSA: he gave vigorous speeches and people and organisations reacted strongly to that - this is sourced in the article.

What might be relevant is if the image itself is hagiographic. The relevant meanings from wikt:hagiography seem to be:

3 - "(countable) A biography which expresses reverence and respect for its subject."

4 - "(pejorative) A biography which is uncritically supportive of its subject, often including embellishments or propaganda."

Meaning 3 - Expressing respect for the subject is not so far from WP:BIO guidelines. Even though al-Nimr recently died, the guideline tends to be followed for articles on individual people. Expressing reverence is more subjective - how can we tell from this picture that reverence is expressed? There's no sign e.g. of a halo.

Meaning 4 - I don't see any special embellishments or propaganda in the picture. If it's the gradual fading out of background colours, that can easily be gimped by anyone who wishes to make a version without the fading.

Monochrome: please show us where in MOS/Images or another relevant guideline there is a suggestion that the POV of the source of an image (e.g. a hagiographic source) is relevant; or where hand drawings are stated to be unacceptable. Boud (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not the source, that's a distraction. The use of an image with shock value is perfectly avoidable. For instance, this drawing is based on a photograph which could be used. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So you withdraw your statement "comes from a hagiographic Iranian source" as distracting - thanks, that clarifies things. Now your arguments seem to be:

• "[It is] an image with shock value..."
• "[There exists] a photograph which could be used."

Please explain why the image has shock value. I stated above why the image presents WP:RS'd information that does not have shock value.

Please upload the free-licensed "photograph which could be used" to Wikimedia Commons.

Thanks :). Boud (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Since we don't have any explanation for why a drawing of an orator speaking has shock value, and no alternative images have been provided, we don't seem to have any justification for removing the picture from the article under Wikipedia guidelines. So I will restore the image. Boud (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Strike-out added; someone else restored the image; discussion not closed: see below. Boud (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a "martyr portrait". By nature those are not NPOV. The original image isn't free.[5] --Monochrome_Monitor 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be much info at martyr protrait or wikt:martyr portrait or shahid about styles of martyr portraits. You're going to have to help: don't assume that we all have the same cultural experience and backgrounds. Without more info, your claim of this style having a "martyr" connotation is hard to judge.
• Thanks for the link to the photo. Your assertion looks like a reasonable guess, but so far, it's only a guess. I made a suggestion to the person who approved what I earlier called a drawing (it's obviously a derivative of the photo, so not a drawing), at commons:User_talk:Amitie_10g#al-Nimr_image_is_obviously_a_derivative_work. If Amitie 10g does not start a deletion proposal at Commons, then you should make the proposal there if you have direct evidence that the derivative image is non-free, or if you think the original uploader needs to better justify his/her case of a CC-BY licence. Boud (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so it's common in Shia/Sunni muslim states to release portraits of martyrs. They are usually a cutout of the person with arabic calligraphy and a stylized background. Here's an example. [6]. Mohamed Bouazizi is a genuine martyr, but many in these pictures are terrorists. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

For examples, these people are terrorists. At least one of them is. [7]--Monochrome_Monitor 23:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I think fair proof this is a "martyr photo" is that it's used here. [8]--Monochrome_Monitor 05:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It changes, depending on context. If you march it in a protest, it's a martyr portrait. If you hang it on a wall, it's a painting. It can be a magazine cover, historical documentation or a T-shirt. Here, it's an illustration of an encyclopedia subject. No more, no less. Just like every stylized shot of Ronald Reagan. They're going to mean something iconic to someone, and something else to someone else. No way around that, whatever the medium. Just how images work. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree for the most part, but there's still a clear difference between photographs and portraits. Photographs are by nature more objective. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

On their own, yeah. But humans take photographs, not cameras. And humans lie. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

True. Creative lighting and staging can be deceptive. Thanks, that's a great article. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

The stylised portrait is under deletion discussion at Commons. See Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests for guidelines, including "Under the rules of evidence we apply [at Wikimedia Commons], the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept". So if Press TV incorrectly claimed copyright on a photo that the original photographer agrees to distribute under e.g. CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, then someone in contact with the original photographer would need to participate in the discussion at Commons.

Independently, someone with good contact at Press TV might want to try to convince Press TV to allow the photo that appears to be a Press TV photo to be distributed under CC-BY-SA, and to convince Press TV to state that to a Wikimedia Commons volunteer. Boud (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This seems to show only one side of the argument

This mostly seems to show one side (against) the execution Skupsum (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If you mean through the reactions sections, yeah. But "against" is the angle most news sources and politicians are taking (at least in "the West"), and we can only reflect them. If you've read or heard something reliable to the contrary, cite it in the article, or share it here if you're locked out. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. See [9] 107.72.97.198 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 10:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Nimr al-Nimr → Baqir al-Nimr – The current name is redundant and peculiar. I propose renaming the page to Baqir al-Nimr or Sheikh al-Nimr. LissanX (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC) LissanX (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose There's no redundancy in people's name, you've to use it how it is. 1.2 million hits for Nimr al-Nimr against exiguous 51 thousand for Baqir al-nimr. This alone tells all. Then, "Sheikh" not his name, seems you are not proposing this based on Policy.–Ammarpad (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose under WP:COMMON. The current name is not redundant and is very common. It's a bit like someone called John Johnson, since having "the" in English names is not so common - or John bin John - John the son of John. If we wanted the name to sound more English, we could remove "the", i.e. Nimr Nimr, but that would not be a common version. It's not up to Wikipedians to anglicise a name to make it sound more English because it sounds "peculiar" to us. If Nimr al-Nimr becomes well enough known in the English-speaking world for his name to develop an anglicised version with only one "tiger" in it, then that will be the time to consider a name change. People around the world have all sorts of naming patterns. Boud (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

---

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Protest in Tehran against execution of Nimr al-Nimr (1).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)