Talk:Al-Nas

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Page move

Considering the bolded page title "Surat an-Nas", should this page be moved to "Surat an-Nas", rather than its current location of An-Nas?--Commander Keane 06:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 88.153.92.147 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC) "Surat an-Nas" means The Surah Which Men, and that title is a syntax error and doesn't make any sense. The correct name of this surah is "Surat (Al)-Nas", The Surah of Men.[reply]

gillfendor 88.153.92.147 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the view that Al-Nās is the common name as evidenced by this ref JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A google search turns up these:

I therefore believe that the page should be reinstated at its longstanding name An-Nas per WP:MOSAR#Common transcription.

In any case, regardless of the diacritic on the letter a, the Arabic definite article changes from al- to an- before letter n. – Fayenatic London 09:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) From "Arabic definite article", my emphasis: The sound of the final -l consonant can vary; when followed by a sun letter such as n, it is replaced by the sound of the initial consonant of the following noun, thus doubling it. For example: for "the Nile", one does not say al-Nīl, but an-Nīl. This affects only the pronunciation and not the spelling of the article A Google search turns up al Nās in equal measure:JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that Ngram supports "al-Nas" in books.[1] However, An-Nas leads on the first page of Google searches; and using quotes, Googe finds 1.9 million results for "An Nas" compared to 1 million for "Al Nas". Please paste a link for equal measure on Google search. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSISLAM, "As a general rule, diacritical marks over and under the letters should not be used in article titles or text." So the title should be Al-Nas or An-Nas. WP:MOSAR says, "Both the non-assimilated (al-) or the assimilated (ad-) form appear in various standards of transliteration, and both allow the recreation of the original Arabic. For this Manual of Style, assimilated letters will be used, as it aids readers in the correct pronunciation." MOSAR is just a proposed guideline though and the sun letter issue is disputed. Personally I'd prefer Al-Nas. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JorgeLaArdilla: Stop moving pages before reaching consensus! Most sura articles used titles and leads with a common style, so you are in fact acting against the consensus of other editors. You have been asked to discuss such changes, yet you continue to make them against other editors. If you don't get others to agree with you on talk pages, your edits will only get reverted. Diacritical marks should not be used in article tiles or text, and starting the lead with lowercase 'al nās' as you did is just nonsense. Both An-Nas and Al-Nas are fine by me. Tokenzero (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not see the consensus that you claim. The Infobox contains the diacritics - where is the debate & the little group of wikignomes dutifully removing those diacritics? WP:MOSAR uses Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi as an example - check out his page. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My main point is that there is no consensus for the opposite. You should always seek one before moving any series of pages. This is only more evident from the fact that your moves keep getting reverted, on various articles, by various editors.

Now for existing consensus, the most obvious example is that the lead of articles starting with 'al' should not start with lowercase — are you also questioning that? (The infobox usually contains more technical information, so diacritics are more suitable there; as they are in the first sentence of the lead, and whenever discussing linguistics, e.g. etymology sections). Tokenzero (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

JorgeLaArdilla (talk · contribs) has introduced or reinstated several errors on this page.

Even the edit summary "Narrated by at-Trim idea" [2] is plain wrong.

Consistent use of "surah" changed to a inconsistent use of sura, surah, Surah, although he changed this to "chapter" a few edits later
"God" changed to "Allah", although he selectively reverted himself on this a few edits later
"Name" paragraph: phrase moved to next line, changing clear sentences into meaningless text; when he edited this a few edits later, it was only to insert a space, not to repair the damage.
Right-alignment in a table that has only English text, no Arabic or numerical columns
Garbage at end of citation "HTML, PDF, Free Download"
at-Tirm idhee changed deliberately to "at-Trim idea" as referred to in the edit summary. The Wikipedia article is Al-Tirmidhi, and the link At-Tirmidhi is used at the start of the "Implcations" section, so the first was better.
Im aam Al-Albaanee changed to "I'm aam Al-Albaanee". This is about Imam Al-Albani, so the apostrophe is completely wrong.
Empty half row added at end of table

I have no exe to grind on "surah" or "chapter", but it would be appropriate to seek consensus at WT:ISLAM before making wholesale changes to articles on surahs.

IMHO it would be better to revert this disruptive series of edits. – Fayenatic London 09:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent use of "surah" changed to a inconsistent use of sura, surah, Surah, although he changed this to "chapter" a few edits later...er no... the inconsistencies existed before I ever edited tha article. I am trying to clear up the inconsistencies. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You already know all the above was one clumsy edit which I am trying to clear up - Quit with the disingenuous use of WP:Disruptive editing to poison the well. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary "Narrated by at-Trim idea", reverting a second time, after the initial clumsy edit, made it look as if you fully intended to revert.

It was not apparent that you are trying to clear it up – you could have reverted yourself, and then started from the last good version.

If you save accidentally with a misleading edit summary, you can follow this up with a WP:dummy edit giving a clearer edit summary. – Fayenatic London 10:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I refute it thus!" We are agreed that Al-Tirmidhi is to be preferred to At-Tirmidhi, Al-Nās, as opposed to An-Nās, is consistent with this. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of the garbage was introduced by IP edits and only accidentally, temporarily reintroduced by JorgeLaArdilla. Changes by JorgeLaArdilla amount to this diff where most changes are beneficial (a nice addition to the lead, a good rearranging of section, a lot of wikization) or neutral. The only thing I'd complain about are the rendering of the title in the lead, the edit summaries, and (less importantly) the introduced diacritics. Tokenzero (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but JorgeLaArdilla reinstated the IP garbage edits twice on 29 May (special:diff/899342935 and special:diff/899351122), ignored the request to discuss them per WP:BRD (special:diff/899349525), and only corrected them after I spelled them out to him in the above post. In the intervening two days he moved the page again and then neglected it (editing other pages instead [3]) until I prompted him to sort it out, above. That is why I disputed his claim that "I am trying to clear up"; he wasn't, but he has since done so. – Fayenatic London 15:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]