Archive #1 by Werdnabot /Archive 2

[] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skatewalk (talk • contribs) 20:57, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I know that many Arab editors feel isolated some times as there are not many and there are so many articles. I believe a project page will enable every to share their collective wisdom on Arab-related subjects, even when they are not necessarily of a user's topic of interest. I don't see how this is the promotion of pan-Arabism or any ideology as Wiki Projects are not exclusive clubs.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I did read this article, it contains a lot of unusual information, propagandistic views and weasel words in the article Arab. I therefore would like to get a group with me who are able to rewrite this article in a best way to get best results. Anyone who want to join our team add your name below in the Arab Talk page. Please note that after the team has gathered, we will place "under-progress" tag. Irqirq 14:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FayssalF. It is good that you clarified that Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and that there are no teams built to exclusively edit articles. I would just say that I think people are just excited about the prospect of the WikiProject and jumped the gun buy organizing at the Arab talk page instead of where they would if the project goes ahead. I also wasn't sanctioning the idea that people have to specify their country of origins to get involved (in case your comments were directed to me). I only mentioned my own by way of voluntary introduction and general sharing. Anyway, I think being firm about what Wikipedia is and isn't is good, but perhaps we could be more understanding of what I as an optimist would like to see as enthusiasm that needs a little guidance. Tiamat 17:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiamut. Noway, i was talking to the users who signed. My userpage tells you from where i come so that's not the point. But creating Team A and B based on nationalities is nonsense. I was talking to the users who used the tiny flags. Nonsense.

We'll get the WikiProject. I understand that some people would think of the project as a threat if i'd exaggerate. That is normal as it happens at WP Spain Vs WP Catalonia and WP Valencian Community. However, i made it clear at the WP Council yesterday that WikiProjects are to enhance the quality of articles according to wikipedia policies. No POV agendas and no disruprion would be tolerated in the project BUT today there come some users (i don't know but they just appeared!) talking about building a team to write a simple article! Nonsense. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FayssalF, thanks for clarifying. I agree fully with your comments. I would also say that after having reviewed some more of the comments on the page that the "team" is mostly not part of the Arab WikiProject proposal and seems to be a parallel effort. (Very confusing!) In any case, I'll be keeping my eye on things as well. We really do need an Arab WikiProject though we definitely do not need people misunderstanding what it is about. It's not a private "Arab" club, but a way of coordinating efforts to improving and expanding Arab-related articles to bring them in line with Wiki policies like NPOV and NOR, which they badly need right now. See you around. Tiamat 18:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiamut, Yes some people which are not Arabs or some who don't wish to be Arabs have caused a chaos in this article. People who have worked with Arab related topics should work together to vanish such vandalism. And once again thanks for your help. Irqirq 19:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect I do not support any Arab projects, It's like uniting something that are divided. Regions in Arab league are divided into 22 countries. Every country got a unique history uniting this will cause nonsense and bad influence on the Arab identity. Anyway I will remember to join after I have finished focusing on my team. Irqirq 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Kindness and for understanding every angle of a story Irqirq 20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tiamut, May I ask if you how many Arab Jews there are in Israel and who are the largest group Iraqi?, Moroccan?, Egyptian? or any other jews from Arab country? thanks. Irqirq 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Well I am trying to imporve the article Arab Jews. but I am not sure if Morrocaan jews are the corect people to be listed as Arab Jews since they where Spanish Jews wich escaped and by the way I am trying to make an Ethnobox listing on this article but I can't find enough sources and who is the right group to be listed as "Arab Jews". I will need your help If its possiable thank you very much. Irqirq 16:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed POV sources, references that you mentioned, can you ples make sure you watch the article. Incase they start adding them again.
• I removed the nationalism section, Nusayri said he wants to mention it in the istory section. Please add in the discussion page. Where do you think it should be added
• Thanks for your efforts to clean up the article--Skatewalk 00:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Thank YOU for supporting this subject. You are just far to kind than neededIrqirq 09:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On August 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tawfiq Canaan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done Tiamut and keep on submitting please. We need more ARab content on DYK. Thanks, and happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps it was not your intention to ignore the talk page and revert the material despite it being tag reverted by a drive-by reverting user. however, you have both ignored the talk page^[2] and made an incorrect edit summary when you only gave a reason for removal of "battle of jenin" (it already beying linked in the article) but have not given a reason for the removal of Jenin, Jenin.^[3] i request you consider explaining this edit further on talk or revising this possible oversight and reinserting the Jenin, Jenin link. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first barnstar! Thank you very much for that. In the weird way of wikipedia (www!), it's only a little diversion for me from my main projects, so quite a surprise to get a barnstar. More "www": I only came across this chap when looking on the James Miller disambiguation page for the architect who designed the railway station in the small Scottish town where I grew up - he wasn't there, so I set up a stub article for him, James Miller (architect), which I think is probably my best single edit.

I try to do what I can on the I-P articles, but I generally find them unpleasant and stressful to work on, so I admire the work you're doing on Wikipedia, and thank you for making life a little easier. Meanwhile, back to the www:John Boyd Orr, who grew up in the same place I did, and went to the same village school (the same old Victorian building even, which sadly no longer exists); then I've got a couple more Nobel peace laureates lined up to work on, then a whole shower of Quakerism-related articles, some of which are currently pretty dire.
--NSH001 12:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiamut. Thanks for your note about adding material (8/21-22) while keeping in mind my earlier points. Without going into the whole dispute over WP policy (eg undue), let me try to give you my thoughts on editing your contribution. Kudos to you for finding various sources. (a) I believe the average reader would appreciate an intro sentence or two to this section. Something about the relevance of Biblical-era claims of ancestry and how such claims, though lacking support among mainstream archaeolgists or historians, still resonate for many Palestinians. (b) It's my guess that the average reader would need you to unpack Z Mohammed -- maybe just put that dense quote in footnote(s). Also, ZM seems to make same key point as Salim Tamari. So perhaps like this: "If the evidence for Canaanite ancestry has been weak, why have such claims persisted? Historians (?) Z M and S T say that the the search for Canaanite roots has arisen mainly as a reaction to Jewish nationalist efforts to establish Jewish claims of Biblical ancestry. However, they argue that such claims implicitly validate/reinforce Jewish nationalist discourse. (fn quote ZM ST) They thereby rejects Canaanite claims as (both historically flawed and) as a counter-productive strategy of Palestinian ideology." (c) Both ZM and ST quotes are in academic jargon and presume, I think, too much knowledge for our readers. You probably don't bat an eyelash at terms like patrimony, a priori, and modern European contingencies, but for somebody who is learning from the article itself, the quotes are quite dense. (d) This is an interesting but rather minor point: "Tamari further notes the paradoxes...." Again, maybe you'd need to first tell readers about the (somewhat) parallel movements and then give Tamari's critique. Also, I'd drop "anti-Zionist" as an overly reductive modifier for the (Jewish) Canaanite movement. (e) But the rest of the paragraph gives another, more important point by Tamari. Separate this point. Maybe write: "Various early Zionists used rhetoric themselves that, perhaps inadvertently, reinforced (Arab/Palestinian/Moslem ?) claims to Canaanite ancestry." Then give Borochov, Ahad Ha'am, BG etc in text or footnotes. But why not move this point, which reinforces the Canaanite claims narrative, before the criticism of ZM and ST? (f) Can you sum up the section somehow? Or do your sources describe the current level of Canaanite claims today? Like: While claims to Canaanite ancestry thus have been criticized on both scientific and ideological grounds, such claims continue to appear in Palestinian popular writings {footnote sources}. Or conversely: Since claims to Canaanite ancestry thus have been criticized on both scientific and ideological grounds, such claims are seldom heard in Palestinian popular writings today.

Well, maybe I've written too much. Hope this is useful and that you can follow my suggestions. Take care, HG | Talk 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HG. The more reading I have done, the more it has become clear to me that there is some evidence for a Canaanite descent for modern-day Palestinians and that this is not a fringe opinion in anthropological, historical, genetic, and even archaeological circles. For example, [this article http://nidal.com/anaccash/THE_EMPIRE_OF_THE_AMORITES_REVISITED.html] presented an the International Symposium on Syria and the Near East explains that:

The "Formative Period", ca. 1,000 BC to 1,000 AD, is the period during which the characteristic social morphology of the area was formed. The specificity, or cultural and civilizational "flavor" of the North-Western Mashriq [Syria and Palestine] was established during the "Foundation Period", but it is during the "Formative Period" that, through various processes and under many different influences, the peoples of the area organized themselves in the "multiconfessional societies" typical of the "Modern Period." At the start of the "Formative Period" it is as if we could see three "ethnic" super-groups emerging from the "Amoritic" nebulae that characterized the previous period. We could provisionally designate these super-groups as the "Arameans", the "Cananeans" and the "Arabs" (including all their various kingdoms and/or emirates). These groups then mix and mingle in various ways, and also variously interact with the successive dominant military powers until they are nearly linguistically and socially homogenized by the end of the period, but organized in the characteristic mosaic of religious communities.

I think the article needs to be more clear on the fact that the issue is largely one of semantics caused by the shifting use of self-identifying terms by people in the region. In any case, I do appreciate you feedback and will be using some of it in future edits. Tiamat 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's good of you to keep me informed, since like most folks I like to think something useful will come out of my disparate efforts. I didn't entirely see how much your excerpt (in my Talk page) strengthens your point, but as you can tell I'm not myself trying to gauge the substantive merits. If you'll allow me another comment, intended in a collegial way -- you sound a bit like an enthusiastic (fellow) scholar and you may need to be cautious to avoid original research here. Perhaps don't push too hard on synthesizing the data or on convincing your WP interlocutors that it's not fringe, just write up a few lucid sentences for high school students who are looking at a handy encyclopedia. Ok? My 2 cents. Be well. HG | Talk 23:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit the frog singing, "It's not easy being green" popped into my head for some reason after your comments which didn't dampen my enthusiasm, though I think I heard what you're saying. Summarizing dense scholarly materials in an easy-to-read format is a little challenging though, particularly on a subject that people are quite emotionally sensitive about and are apt at finding ways to disqualify as invalid paraphrasing - thus, the tendency toward quotation. Nevermind though, I'm up for the challenge as always. Tiamat 23:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're thinking of Kermit, then may accept another word of caution from Oscar the Grouch. You said: "the issue is largely one of semantics caused by the shifting use of self-identifying terms by people in the region." It sounds like you are thinking that if it's "merely semantics" (as the hoi polloi might say), then the Canaanite thesis will gain traction. However, linguistic anthropology (etc) takes semantics quite seriously. If scholars say that 'Canaanites' and 'Palestinians' have different denotational fields, due to semantics, then I bet the thesis would be undermined, not supported. Look again at the quote you provided: "the 'Arameans', the 'Cananeans' and the 'Arabs' ... are nearly linguistically and socially homogenized by the end of the period...." The author is saying that, by 1000 CE, the Cananeans (= Canaanites?) can't readily be distinguished from Arabs. Instead, they're organized by religions. Maybe Arabs generally can trace their ancestry partly to Canaanites, but does this really support the thesis of a (ethnic, linguistic, population?) correspondence between Canaanites and Palestinians, who are a subset of Arabs? I would guess not, though maybe I need to try harder not to judge the substantive merits of the info you send me. Skeptically yours, HG | Talk 10:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HG. You are entitled to your skepticism. My opinion on the subject is not informed by only this source (which as you correctly point out is not explicit in the claims it makes). My point is that the idea that there was continuity in the population resident in Palestine over the years is not a fringe opinion. Logically, it followed that explicit claims of descendency from earlier populations like the Canaanites, while often shied away from by scholars, are not so far out of left field within this context. It is important I think to highlight the semantic differences in the population's conception of self, as raised in the article I provided you above, but there is a general consensus that continuity of residency, mixing and intermingling was the norm, rather than the exception among the various groups who passed through Palestine. Tiamat 10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, thanks for your prompt reply. Perhaps I can occasionally serve as a useful sounding board (is that the expression?) for you. As you say, you've taken on an interesting challenge in trying to summarize some dense academese for the Wikipedia readership. (BTW, have you searched for literature reviews of this corpus in dissertations or journals? A review of multiple studies would make it easier for you both to sum up the findings and demonstrate notability.) Anyway, stay in touch, thanks! HG | Talk 10:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement HG. I have searched for literature reviews, but the pickings are slim. I think part of the problem is the hesitancy of scholars to take up this debate due to its political implications. For example, this study on Palestinian DNA and its relationship to Canaanite and other earlier populations in Palestine was pulled from publication (an unprecendented occurrence) after complaints surrounding the political terminology employed by its authors. There are some secondary sources on this issue, which may also prove valuable to the article and the reader's understanding of how these issues relate to Palestinian identity and the conflict with Zionism over Palestine's patrimony. Tiamat 10:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of your concern about politicized academic discourse, I just wrote a note here to PalestineRemembered about the (his) premise of anti-Palestinian systematic bias in US and British news media. I also invoked your (user) name, too, I hope not inappropriately. Feel free to strikeout or edit my reference to you there, or I can do so if you wish. Good luck and regards to Kermit! HG | Talk 11:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, on this I disagree with you. All this talk of Palestinian descent from Canaanites seems a little superfluous. besides, who cares? I'm probably descended partly from Canaanites too ( that is, if even a fw of them converted to Judaism). what diffewrence does it make. this topic often seems like a convoluted way for Palestinians to try to outrank jewish claims to a presence in Israel, although I definitely don't feel that's your motive here personally, actually. Sorry, but that's the way I feel. I am not debating you on this, because I don't oppose well-sourced data, even if I disagree. However, i just want to let you kinow my thoughts on this topic, since it is a subject of some debate. However, I do feel your approach to this is rather well-mannered, as it is based on finding sources, and you do not seem to just throw data in impulsivley or anything. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter. My interest in the material derives from its being defined by Palestinians as part of their identity, and a general interest in ancient history and the opinion of scholarly sources on the subject. I agree that you're probably part descended from the Canaanites too, (as are many Jews, and other human beings and this is something also already implicitly noted in the article via the DNA section as well). I know it seems like a rather esoteric debate, but the issues you raised of "outranking" one another are also discussed by scholarly sources in the text and these things while possibly self-evident to you and me, are like ancient Greek to most others not familiar with the discussion. I'm just trying to decipher the ancient Greek. :) Tiamat 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This vote and your vote here seem advocating opposite positions. For example, you suggest a disambiguation page would be a step in the right direction, and yet for the template, which essentially is a disambiguation page in miniature, you support its deletion. Certainly has me confused. -- 146.115.58.152 00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a redundancy if there is an article entitled Apartheid that discusses the full meaning of the word with links to articles that use that word. The template is also littered with links to tendentiously related subjects, (articles that even lack the word "apartheid" and without a full contextualization of the word's broader and alternate meanings). If you check the history of the Apartheid page (clicking on the redirect and checking the history there) you will see a sketch of what I had in mind for that page, which is vastly different than the content of the template. Tiamat 00:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, parts of the history of Apartheid (disambiguation) looks very much like the template today.[4] or [5], or [6], for example. Though just like the template today people were editing warring over which links it would contain, so the list changes week by week. I don't understand why you think a new disambiguation page would be a different situation. -- 146.115.58.152 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation was my second-choice after an article dealing with the term in its multiple meanings precisely because the lack of contextualization leads to edit warring. Tiamat 09:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, a moot point as you have gotten your wish. -- 146.115.58.152 06:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my wish. I'm not a god. The community weighed in and a decision was taken based on the comments made. Why the focus on me? Tiamat 09:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just saw it and like it better. In fact I hadn't yet heard the term Seam Zone, but since the article wasn't about the zone per se, it's nice to have something more specific to the town. Btw, do you know an explanation of the name? Did/does a lot of basil grow there? Rigadoun (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Um ar-Rehan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Daniel 02:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for turning a brief article about Nadia Abu El Haj's tenure battle into the detailed biography she deserves. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire of the Amorites Revisited --Skatewalk 02:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Reem Riyashi, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1054. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 09:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when replying to you over at the allegations of apartheid page, I notice that your user id and your signature are spelt differently. I had been wondering why so many people seemed to spell your name wrongly. Now I've found out. Is it that either spelling is equally acceptable to you as they're both possible transcriptiond of your name in Arabic?--Peter cohen 15:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it back to the original as I indicated I would on your talk page. Hopefully the confusion generated will subside. Thanks for asking again. It reminded me of how it would be confusing, especially to people who haven't edited with me previously. Tiamut 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. Having spent too much time in my youth playign Dungeons and Dragons, I was aware of the name being one for a monster but hadn't been aware of the Sumerian origin.--Peter cohen 15:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, and the address..I hope you will receive something before Christmas! As for Tawfiq Canaan; hey, you always seem to start articles that I had intended to start! ..You have done a great job. Benvenisti discusses him in the "Sacred landscape"-book: I will try to add that. Eh, and I suppose you have seen my Reem El-Reyashi‎ comment ;-) Anyway; glad to see you around, Huldra 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I absolutely agree: Reem El-Reyashi‎ was not a very good article....(I thought I had seen the story before, so I searched for "Reem") ..........Anyway, the Tawfiq Canaan article is excellent. A small point: in all the references to Jerusalem Quarterly there is a problem: we cannot see that the ref. is to Jerusalem Quarterly! (look at the bottom of the page; under "References")

Now, I see that you have put the name "Jerusalem Quaterly" in the ref: <ref name=Jubeh>{{cite journal|title="Magic and Talismans: The Tawfiq Canaan Collection of Palestinian Amulets"|author=Baha' al-Ju'beh|publisher=Jerusalem Quaterly|volume=Double edition 22 & 23|accessdate=2007-08-22|url=http://www.jerusalemquarterly.org/details.php?cat=5&id=16}}</ref> .......However, it does not show up. (Also; I think there is a spelling mistake: Jerusalem Quaterly ) I am rather unfamiliar with these ref-tags...so I think I will leave it to you to fix it ;-) Huldra 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You mentioned specificity and hence WP:OR as possible problems. I recall an objection to a possible title that might be confused with Israel and South Africa relations, but otherwise I'm not sure what unrelated topics might be invoked. Couldn't an explanatory note meet such speculative objections?

I though it best to reply here because there's a concern, articulated by John Nagle, that continued discussion of renaming is like trolling /will feed trolls. As you might guess, I drafted a too-lengthy reply to justify why the title is worth further discussion. I'd be please if you'd read it and give me some feedback. Until then, I won't ask you more on Talk:AoIA about "Israel and apartheid" in case you feel I'm pestering you. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you be edit-warring on some Israeli-Palestinian article like you usually do to push your Arabist pov instead of trolling on my talk page? Do not disrupt my talk page again. Egyegy 00:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for you to delete this comment [7], and then post this uncivil comment [8] on my talk page. I have not encountered you anywhere but at the Arab page, where you contributions have been cited as quite disruptive, consisting primarily of anti-Arab soapboxing, poorly sourced no less. I am asking you to read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL (and WP:OR and WP:NPOV for good measure). And this is the last time I will ask you to. The next time you breach these guidelines and policies, I will report you to WP:ANI. Thanks. Tiamut 11:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything like that coming from someone whose contributions consist mainly of Arabist pov pushing edit wars is comical. It was you who also not too long ago edit warred on that page to delete the same references about Egyptians after I reverted you [9]. I said before to you and your cohorts (and you're all in good company [10]) to stop posting the stream of anti-Egyptian venom on that page and the pov deletion of sources that question your motives if you don't want other people to react. Egyegy 18:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Tiamut -- I could really use your help as a member of the CSB project to take a look at this page and give your mana'o (thoughts). I am in an edit war with someone who insists that his POV can be pushed and I cannot counter it, because of "undue weight" (it is true that Hawaiians are now a minority in Hawai'i, and those both knowledgeable in history and willing and able to speak out about it are a relatively small group, but I don't think the indigenous viewpoint being squashed is ok either). I am not asking for anyone to participate in the struggle itself, but there needs to be a broader perspective, so if you can take a look at it and give your thoughts (it's okay not to know anything about the subject; it might be better that way), it would be really appreciated! Aloha, --Laualoha 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalo nui!! Your quick response was amazing, and the academic references really helped a lot. I will try to be more meticulous in citations myself -- not my strong point, but I'm working on it. Again, mahalo! Aloha, --Laualoha 15:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely edit, Tiamut, over at the 'Arab Jews' page. I was particularly moved by the 1919 declaration. Sorry for calling on your private leisure time for assistance in this matter. Finest regardsNishidani 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]