Talk:Al-Insan

Restoring disputed content

Hello JorgeLaArdilla,

If another editor reverted your changes, like in Al-Insan, please discuss and reach consensus before insisting on restoring it again, as happened here [1] [2]. I have explained why I don't think these edits are improvements in my initial edit summary. The etiquette described in WP:BRD is important so that we don't just get bogged down in unproductive revert cycle. HaEr48 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Use of english as lead title is against current practice, This is English Wikipedia. You need to provide a reference for Al-Insān. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  According to the MOS, the subject of the sentence is preferably the title of the article. The title of the article is the arabic name, similar to all other articles on Quranic chapters. If you want to change that, you need to get consensus first.

  The title of the article is disputed in the arabic ad-dahr (الدهر) or Al-Insān الإنسان- Why two?

  I wouldn't call it "disputed". It's just people refer to it by two different names. Using the English translation does not change this, because al-Dahr will map into a different translation, e.g. "the Endless Time". HaEr48 (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  What you say is unreferenced. The only reference is Sale's English translation

  If you look at the #Names section, various names of this sura, including al-Dahr and several others, is discussed, along with their origins, with a reference to a modern published source that discusses them. HaEr48 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, Didn't see that. I've flipped Arabic alternatives to present more common title. I note SQ presents the English translation as the title. I am not dismissing Study Quran but there is a big but in that editor is a creationist. A creationist relies on faith, not fact. We might need to continue this at WP:RS. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think that has anything to do for this article, given that the topic is not about evolution or creationism. We're talking about the names used to refer to this sura. Seyyed Hussein Nasr is a George Washington University professor and an authority on Islamic studies, and the work is published by HarperCollins which is a reliable publisher. HaEr48 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• George Sale material needs secondary sources in order to be WP:RS

  As I explain in the thread you link, you need secondary sources to include the George Sale material, not just the George Sale citation itself. HaEr48 (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  The first Muslim member of Congress used George Sale's Quran, specially loaned by the Library of Congress.

  I don't think that has bearing on the RS status as an academic resource. In any case, that's just one instance of any other swearing ceremony that involves a copy of the Quran. Do the copies used by all other ceremonies suddenly have elevated status too? HaEr48 (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Such as? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• why would you replace Quran 75 with Al-Qiyama. How is that good English. Quran 77 & Al-Mursalat? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary

@JorgeLaArdilla: Per your edit summary here, nothing in the talk page seems to indicate any consensus for the summary list. In fact, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras indicates that the consensus seems to tend against the inclusion, that's why I removed it. HaEr48 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed the issues raised on that page. What is it that you truly object to? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

But there is no agreement there, in fact most responders seemed to object. I (and other commenters) in that thread have described the objection, e.g. the use of list instead of prose (see MOS:PROSE), undue weight (see WP:WEIGHT) and the often non-encyclopedic tone, e.g. "Unbelievers love the present life". The addition in this page also have those same problems. HaEr48 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Unbelievers choose this life, but neglect the life to come? Per Lumbard: As with its near analog, Q75:20–21, this verse indicates the manner in which preoccupation with the things of this world distract. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's still written in a religious POV. Wikipedia's tone should be impartial, neutral, and descriptive. HaEr48 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The line is a summary of the religious POV in/of The Quran. The motivation of the author, in his own words was to enable the average student of Islām to speedily acquaint himself with the main points presented. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)