Talk:Al-Shunah al-Shamalyah

What about an article on South Shuneh?

Shuneh el-Janubiyeh is mentioned by M. Piccirillo, for instance here, and by others. It would be welcome.

Is it the "Shunet Nimrin" from WWI? See Second Transjordan attack on Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt. If so, then after the creation of the article, Shunet Nimrin, wherever it occurs, must be linked to it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

English spelling of Arabic place-names

I have brought this up on many pages, with little result. A standard system, not to be applied blindly, but as a source of reference, is needed. There are Jordanian lists of toponyms, I have once seen partial ones prepared by the Department of Antiquities, but they're not online – and I don't know if they've been worked through to a final form. Here a few options.

• The old familiar spelling, used by many of the old British sources, which became the gold standard, and adopted from there by hugely popular travel guides, such as Lonely Planet's Jordan: -eh for the ending, with -iyeh for the long i in the fem. sing. form, and less cumbersome versions for within the text (dropping the initial article, or using English forms such as "North Shuna"). Archaeologists across the region are still using the British-era toponyms in official publications, but there are efforts underway to reform them, for whatever reason. The old spelling standards were developed over time by the PEF and the official cartography departments while preparing the SWP and Mandate-period maps, gazetteers, and so forth. They have laid the foundation (and built the first 15 floors) of cartography and archaelogy in Jordan and Palestine/Israel. Local authorities often follow no rules whatsoever, so keeping the old ones would be by far better.

• The Oxford Guide to Style (from here on OGS), an academic guide where general rules are explained by a trustworthy, specialised US-born scholar: in 2003, one year after publishing the OGS, Robert M. Ritter was Publications Manager for the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. It's not taylor-made for our needs, but quite useful nevertheless. It recommends (I'm using > for "preferred to"):

▶ a > e within the word

▶ ah or a > eh or e as an ending (feminine singular)

▶ definite article (al- etc.) ALWAYS joined to the noun by a hyphen

▶ When the word following al- begins with one of the 14 'sun' letters (t, th, d, dh, r, z, s, sh, ṣ, ḍ, ṭ, ẓ, l, n), the l is replaced by ('assimilated to') the 'sun' letter => we get ad-, an-, ar-, as-, at-, or az-. Exception: personal names in usual scholarly usage, where it remains al-.

▶ Everywhere, as a rule: widely used spellings remain unchanged, even against the rules chosen for the article at hand.

Ritter also mentions three other widely used standards, but I lack the time to search for those too. They have been established and are used by:

• Encyclopaedia of Islam – used especially in English, and among those writing on history, religion, or literature
• International Journal of Middle East Studies (IJMES) – favoured by German and French writers, and those writing on linguistics
• US Library of Congress – increasingly adopted in English-speaking world; catalogue Bodleian Library + other Oxford libraries, British Library

• The gazetteer published by the US Board on Geographic Names : we can also use it to a degree, although it's quite old already (1990), but it's fully worked through and very detailed. Where they clearly diverge from the standards applied by most academic, mainly archaeology-related systems (see OGS), is that they don't use a hyphen between the defined article and the nouns & adjectives, which we should. Also, they've completely replaced e with a, which goes against the old standard developed by the Brits and the flexibility recommended by the OGS. They have influenced the authorities, with the result that administrative spelling tends to follow US rules, while academic spelling follows the long-standing British rules. As a side-effect, the universally used and (I hope) unshakeable spelling of the common noun "tell", when used in administrative toponyms, is taking the weird form "tall". Fuck knows what that's supposed to improve. Mind Ritter's (OGS) rule of NEVER changing deeply rooted, familiar spellings.

Concrete example for this article: see the US gazetteer entries from p. 237. I have grouped together all variants leading to the same recommended spelling:

▶ Ash Shūnah (for Shuna, Shunah, Maḥaṭṭat Kahrabā' ash Shūnah = Shuneh Power Station)

▶ Shūnat Nimrīn (for Shūnet Nimrīn, Shûna, Shuna al Janubiya, Shuna Janubiya)

▶ Ash Shūnah ash Shamālīyah (for Shūna, Shuna esh Shamaliya, Shuna Shamaliya)

▶ 'Ayn ash Shūnah (for 'Ain esh Shuna, 'Ain ash Shuna = Shunah Spring)

▶ 'Jisr ash Shūnah (for Jisr esh-Shuna = Shuna Bridge)

▶ Tall ash Shūnah

▶ Shūnat Ibn 'Adwān

It's clear that we have two main places, North and South Shuna. Not clear to me where the gazetteer's Sh. Power Station, Bridge, and Tell are, nor if Shūnat Ibn 'Adwān coincides with one of the two, but this is secondary for now. Anyway, getamap.net states that "Shuneh Power Station is also known as Jisr ash Shunah, ... Shuna Bridge", in Irbid Province (so connected to North Shuna). I guess Shuna Bridge is over the King Abdallah Channel and the power station somewhere nearby - unless they are both actually relating to Rutenberg's power station (there are several bridges there), which would require for Baqura to be in the N Shuna District & Irbid Province, which is perfectly possible.

"The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Archaeological Map) 1:250k, April 1978" (from here on JAM), Sheet 1, has a T[ell] esh-Shunah at what is now South Shuna, which is certain to be identical with our Tell esh-Shuneh. N.B.: there's also a Kh[irbet] esh-Shuneh at what is now North Shuna, certainly the initial nucleus of the current town there.

geographic.org 's page on Jordan (see here) looks mildly useful. Some of the pins are not very accurate, but can help in broad terms. Shuna Refugee Camp is shown at/just outside South Shuna. Shūnat Ibn 'Adwān has a pin in the middle of nowhere, next to some agricultural terraces near Hisban/Husban. Sh. Power Station has its pin in an agricultural field, but it's close to N. Shuna, in Irbid Province. Tall ash Shūnah is totally misplaced, downhill from Pella, but maybe it's not by chance that it's closer to N Shuna than to S Shuna.

EcoPeace Middle East. There is also a New Shuneh near S Shuna (see p. 62, left col.). They call Tell esh-Shuneh "Tell North Shuna", but "they" aren't focused on names, they're into really moving things in the real world ("Regional NGO Master Plan for Sustainable Development in the Jordan Valley. Final Report – June 2015").

The long-standing standard for reproducing long i sounds at the end of place-names is -iyeh or -iyyeh, which looks a bit over the top. The tendency (see OGS) is to now use a for e, so we get -iya(h).

CONCLUSION: I would suggest

▶ Ash-Shunah ash-Shamaliyah = North Shuna (it also gets a lot of Google hits, even the most if one ignores the Wiki monster we've created)

▶ Ash-Shunah al-Janubiyah = South Shuna, aka Shunat Nimrin,

both with the equally valid alternative version without an article (ash-) at the beginning, so

▶ Shunah ash-Shamaliyah and

▶ Shunah al-Janubiyah. This is standard practice when writing in English.

I would personally have preferred the old forms, with -iyeh, but that seems to be sooo 1999. We can consider when to use which form for the article's title, and create redirects for those left out. Arminden (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

References

I created Ash-Shunah al-Janubiyah Loew Galitz (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: Besides the discussion regarding this village, the general discussion about transliteration should be moved to MoS-Arabic, though that page appears defunct due to lack of activity, or another more comprehensive talk page. I agree with the premise: except those places where the clear common name contravenes that recommended in a proposed Manual of Style, we should have consistent transliteration. This has long been on my mind, but I honestly do not know which is the best style to apply—I just favor consistency. As such a policy, if implemented, would be far-ranging, it should be achieved by a consensus. The main questions, should such a policy be in place, are which standard or combination should be used and should there be variation by dialectical region, country, or smaller unit, and if so, should each unit have its own manual of style? Inviting A455bcd9, Attar-Aram syria, Apaugasma, Elie plus, Huldra, Mahmudmasri, Makeandtoss, Oncenawhile, SarahFatimaK, and Zero0000 for their opinions as all have worked either on the topics of Arabic lingusitics or places in various Arab countries. The individual country and linguistics wikiprojects should be notified too in the hopes a wide consensus could be achieved. Al Ameer (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly recommend to follow the main principles of MoS-Arabic: first differentiate between specific terms that are very widely and consistently transcribed in a certain way (e.g., al-Qaeda, Cairo, Mecca, Gamal Abdel Nasser) on the one hand, and those which are commonly transcribed in a number of different ways (e.g., al-sunna, which may commonly be found transcribed al-sunnah, as-sunna, or as-sunnah) on the other. For the first group, which apart from the names of modern Arab figures and well-known place names is a small minority, use the common transcription. For everything else, use the basic transcription system outlined in MoS-Arabic, using the strict transliteration system given there in the lead sentence. MoS-Arabic allows for some variants (assimilation of al- or not, probably should also allow -a or -ah for ta' marbuta), and I think that generally articles should be allowed to deviate from it on a few points, as long as it still resembles it and is self-consistent.

I recommend using this system because as far as I know, regional preferences for transliteration (reflecting also regional pronunciations) are so wildly diverse and unsystematic that there is no way to render them consistent. The basic transcription system in MoS-Arabic closely resembles the most commonly used systems for both Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic, the latter of which remains normative for all Arabic speakers, and is still what people turn to when looking for something consistent and systematic.

I would support updating MoS-Arabic to an official part of the MOS if it would be more focused (leave out the bits on Persian, Urdu and Turkish, which should have their own guidelines) and if it would be made less rigid (explicitly allow articles to deviate on a few points, and let MOS:STYLEVAR apply).

In the case of this article: if North Shuna is in (very) wide use, use that and only transliterate once in the lead and once in the etymology section, strictly: al-Shūna al-Shamāliyya. If North Shuna is not in wide use, use the basic transcription al-Shuna al-Shamaliyya, with the strict transliteration at first mention in the lead. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's decide: ash- or al-?

Thanks to Loew now we have an article on South Shuna, too. There the article used is ash, here it's al – shouldn't we decide for one? There is an article (DAB, but with explanation in the lead) for ash-shamaliyah and I have updated the one on al-janubiyah. Arminden (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

MoS-Arabic currently allows both, but non-assimilation (al-) is in far more common use on Wikipedia, following in this its more common use in the scholarly literature. So I say, use al- for both. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the manual of style should be followed. I even amended it since it was confusing or had multiple styles mixed without labeling.

I've always supported the following practice:

1. In case a certain spelling seems to be imprecise, use it if it is the more common one, e.g. used in journalism and academia.
2. If there are none in the previous case, keep names as they are conventionally written, locally. Arabic speakers of every dialect don't pronounce their places or people in Literary Arabic, rather in their respective dialects, even in formal Literary Arabic speeches.
3. Only in religious terms, e.g. fiqh, shari'a, otherwise, please avoid Literary Arabic transliterations.
4. If definite articles need to be written, they should remain al-, el- or a similar form, with or without hyphenation, never assimilate them, please! Common transliteration schemes avoid assimilating, anyway.
   • Arabic speakers, don't consistently apply the sun and moon rules in pronunciation. As a young child, I remember that I never assimilated any of their definite articles at all and only learned to do so in school.

Thanks. ----Mahmudmasri (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Al Ameer son, hi. Thank you as always for your reply. To everybody else, too: I know I've written quite a lot, but it's quite a lot to cover and I've put some effort into synthesising it all, so pls do read first what I wrote at the top, as MUCH of what I'm seeing added here just repeats what's already there. I mean primarily what Ritter wrote in the Oxford Guide to Style (OGS), which is available online, plus the US gazetteer. I've summarised both using bullets and numbers.

For instance: all the popular spellings stay unchanged, of course. Different rules for scholarly articles on, say, Islam on one hand, and more popular topics on the other - people look up places they've visited and prefer phonetic spellings ("But nobody there pronounced it with an L!") and are unhappy if Wiki comes up with ways they never came across in their guidebook or during the travel. So apples and oranges. Also, Ameer, I easily agree to take into consideration local traditions. In Syria, Lebanon, most of the Maghreb, also Egypt, the French have left their mark and we need to stay connected to what's common. In Israel/Palestine and Jordan, it's been British English for maybe a century, and now the Americans start having the strongest influence. EnWiki is not a different planet, we must stay connected to reality. However, both in I/P and Jo, local street signs and alike aren't better than the Chinese attempts at English and one gets even authorities using self-invented, improvised and inconsistent ways of spelling, which I don't support. We should mention often used ones in the text, but never adopt them for the article titles and headings. Actually a mix of common sense and literacy, with a nod to Lawrence who mocked those who attempted at squeezing Arabic of all couleurs into one Oxford standard.

So yes, IMO different manuals of style for different regions. Mind that there are piles of WWI and WWII articles written based on the spelling used by the armies involved at the time, and it's NEVER a good idea to try to change history. So keep the place-names as they are used in the literature of the time and about that time, and use correct wikilinks, but invisible to the user; for instance keep "Second Transjordan attack on Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt" and use the links [[Ash-Shunah al-Janubiyah|Shunet Nimrin]] and [[As-Salt|As Salt]]. The trick is how to recognise what place is hiding behind the old-fashioned spelling, but good history sections and lots of redirects can solve that problem.

Here I'd be in favour of using Shunah ash-Shamaliyah and Shunah al-Janubiyah, with Ash- at the beginning if it must be (but I think we can do well without; you're the specialists, so you decide), and add redirects for all the common permutations (no final -h, al- everywhere, no hyphens, e instead of a, even that crazy spelling with iyy). That's what I am doing with articles I care more about.

Concrete question: what does shunah mean? I'm sure it's a common noun, but can't find a source. Thanks and see you around, Arminden (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

ar:مخزن حبوب makhzan hubub ("grain storage") / ash-shuna. High above the ground to avoid mice, hence usually a prominent site

That one is easy: wikt:شونة (shunah/shuna/shuneh/shoonah/shouneh; pl. or in constructs: shunat/shunet) says "granary" but in placenames is often translated as "barn", as e.g. in "Shunet El Zebib" translated as "raisin barn". Used in numerous toponyms: "Shunet Sukr", Shunet Makbil en Nimr, etc. even "Khirbat ash-Shunah" ="Ruins of Barn"; Al-Shuna. See eg. The Survey of Eastern Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, Archaeology, Etc. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: Do you mind moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Arabic? I could do so, but I am tempted to remove some parts about this village in particular, so that we may focus on the discussion of "English spelling of Arabic place-names" and hopefully derive from it some concrete steps to bring order, perhaps through manuals of style for each country or larger dialectical region, on how spell Arabic place names here. Al Ameer (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Ameer, hi. Not only do I agree, that was exactly what I offered when I pinged you in the first place: to take the discussion to the proper discussion page, less what's specific for Shuna. Shuna can be kept in part as an example, but not all the specifics. Essential are the sources (Ritter, US gazetteer, the 3 other reference works listed, which I don't have time going through) and the bulleted structure. Thank you! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What does 'shunah' mean as a common noun?

? Arminden (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

But I have already answered the "Concrete question" right above! Loew Galitz (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Loew, sorry, I have overlooked it. Thanks! Great, I was really curious. Stupid of me not to look up the SWP glossary. Let's put it in, shall we? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)