User talk:Louse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Arab world
Hi,
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Reagrding Arab Nation, I think a brief mention in this article is appropriate, while some of the information you put in (and I deleted) could be put in a new article with that subject.
Reagrding Indian Ocean, I have two problems: first it makes it sound as if there is continuity from the Med to the Indian Ocean, which is not the case. And I would argue that while the Comoros is a member of the Arab League, like Somalia and Djibouti it is not generally considered part of the Arab world, mainly because the population is not predominantly Arabic speaking.
On the gulf, the policy is to use the most usual name for English speakers. Wehn talking of the region, it is most common not to mention whose gulf it is (Gulf cooperation council, Gulf Arabic etc.). But the body of water is the Persian Gulf. May be change to: from Atlantic to the Indian Ocean (where there is continuity), to avoid giving the ineviatble offence?
All the best,
Drmaik 08:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Egypt
I don't have an issue with the rest of the changes but referring to the 1952 Free Officers movement as "THE Egyptian Revolution" is most certainly not neutral nor accurate. It merely reflects an opinion, a pro-Nasserist one, which is fine otherwise, but the nature of Wikipedia is that articles must remain neutral. It totally glosses over the 1919 revolution which many Egyptians would argue is a revolution in the sense of being staged by the people rather than the army, but regardless of the view on the topic, the article must remain neutral on the issue, and referring to the 1952 revolution as "THE" Egyptian Revolution is not. It is an opinion, a politically laden one similar to the term "Arab Nation" (though Arab World is fine). Furthermore, articles' lead sections need to follow the guidelines, as I already mentioned.
I encourage you to take your time to peruse WP:NPOV, WP:CON and other policies, and to use the articles' talk pages as much as possible to build consensus. Massive changes to established articles or undoing the work of others, esp. by new users, frustrates other editors who have taken the time to work on those articles, and can lead to your changes being reverted. — Zerida 18:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop being so hostile and learn to conduct yourself a little more civilly. I don't know how many times I have to explain that lead sections need to follow the guidelines above. There is no article titled The Egyptian Revolution so it does not make sense to change the lead to reflect something that does not exist. And your insistence on describing the event as the Egyptian Revolution to the exclusion of others is not only POV but borders on WP:OR since it is presented with little more than fanfare to substantiate it with reliable sources. The term "1952 Revolution" is frequently used simply so as to distinguish it from the 1919 event, hence the article title which I did not create. I am not going to dignify the rest of your diatribe with a response. — Zerida 01:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flag of WS
Hi Louse. You have made some changes to the flag of WS. As you can see from the article history, there is an editor (actually a reverter), Reisio, who is constantly reverting changes made by others(Juiced Lemon, Wikima, me, and recently you). The flag in question is that of the auto-proclaimed Sahrawi republic declared by the Polisario front. Western Sahara is a territory in dispute between the kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario. For Morocco, the flag of WS is that of Morocco, and for the Polisario, the flag if that of Polisario. When the Polisario flag was created, the territory was called "Spanish Sahara" and not "Western Sahara". So the version I restore is NPOV, and states that the flag in question is that of the SADR not WS.--A Jalil 03:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Invitation
 |
You have been invited to join the WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Africa. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading! |
Belovedfreak 11:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Egypt, Palestine, Palestinian Territories
Hi Louse,
You wrote: "Palestine is the correct term. What country is Gaza in if not Palestine? It is preposterous and biased to expunge this term." First and formost, I would say Gaza is not in any country and that is why this conflict exists in the first place. Palestine can also mean many things. For example, many people feel that all of Israel is Palestine. So I feel usage of the term can be confusing. Perhaps a better compromise would be Palestine (Gaza Strip]. What do you think? --Oneworld25 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oneworld,
Thank you for your courteous and reasoned message. As I am sure you are aware, such matters are the subject of intense disagreement on internet based information portals, with many contributors on Wikipedia abusing the editing system to replace facts with propaganda. This is often the case with those of Zionist perspectives who wish to remove any and all references to Palestine or occupation. As such, I am very appreciative of your message and good faith efforts.
While I maintain that Palestine is the most appropriate term to use in this section, and is the most neutral and impartial term, I recognize that your edit of "Palestine (Gaza Strip)" was a good faith effort to resolve the issue. Moreover, I feel it is an acceptable alternative that seeks to provide the reader with a full, accurate and impartial account, as per the WIkipedia regulations. Sadly, as I feared, in the intervening period between your edit and my typing of this reply, someone else has once more removed the term Palestine. Perhaps you would like to revert this change back to your edit. It is unacceptable and against the spirit and regulations of Wikipedia to continually expunge references to Palestine, and I intend to remain vigilant of such actions on this particular page.
Though, as stated, I feel your edit is an acceptable alternative, and should your edit be restored I would not remove it, I would like to explain why I believe that Palestine is the most appropriate term.
It is incontrovertible that Palestine was a country and/or distinct geographic unit (though obviously not a state and lacking self-government) up until 1948. This is not a matter of controversy and as a statement it is neither pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. Simply because Palestine was not a sovereign state does not mean that use of the term is incorrect. Terms such as India, Nigeria, Iraq, etc, were all used prior to these countries becoming sovereign states.
The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 did not render the term Palestine obsolete. Firstly, it is still valid as a geographic term for the entirety of the territory of the what was the British Mandate when used in conjunction with the term Israel. Secondly, the new State of Israel did not include all of the territory of the mandate and it did not suddenly become inappropriate to use the term Palestine when referring to the 22% of the mandate that remained outside Israeli control (you will note that the government of Egypt, both under King Farouk and President Naguib and Nasser, never annexed Gaza or made any territorial claims to it or any part of the former mandate; the official Egyptian position was that Gaza was under Egyptian administration to safeguard it against being absorbed by the State of Israel - contrast with the official policy of the government of Jordan at the time). Thirdly, the State of Palestine as declared in 1988 is a full member of the Arab League, and recognized by Arab states and a number of other states as a bona fida state. The fact that neither Israel nor the UN, nor even a majority of states recognize the State of Palestine does not preclude use of the term. This is the case with the State of Israel, which is not recognized by most Arab and Muslim states. Use of the term Israel is not precluded by this lack of recognition.
(Those who claim that Palestine "is not yet a country" ignore the difference between the terms country and state. Once again, India was a country prior to it becoming a state. Moreover, such views ignore the fact that from the Palestinian perspective, the "establishment of a Palestinian state" means the recognition of the declared State of Palestine by Israel and the wider international community within mutually agreed borders. It does not mean that the Palestinians have revoked their declaration of statehood)
Attempts to remove references to the term Palestine on Wikipedia in favor of the exclusive use of Palestinian Territories is akin to removing references to Israel in favor of the exclusive use of Zionist Entity. I note your concern that the term may be confusing due to the fact that some claim the entirety of the former mandate as belonging to the State of Palestine. However, one could also advance the argument that many claim the entirety of the mandate (and even beyond in the case of the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms) as belonging to the State of Israel. The possibility of such confusion is reduced when both terms, Palestine and Israel, are used in conjunction with one another.
Ultimately, this section of the Egypt article should not prejudice the claims or status of either party, and should simply provide the reader with an accurate and impartial account.
I assume you will have thoughts on the issues I have raised and I would be more than happy to continue this discussion with you. Once again, should you choose to revert the current version back to the edit you made yesterday, I would be in agreement.
Thanks and best wishes.
Louse 16:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notice !
Good day sir , as i see you hold a master in Law , Sir you have changed the word "Saudis" to "wahhabi" in article :Muhammad Ali of Egypt.
- such words like (Crusades , Zionists , Wahhabists ...etc ) are considered against the rule WP:Vandalism , as long as they are not neccesary.
- such unsourced edits are against the rule WP:COI .
please give a better reasons or sources or i'd Undo your edit , thanks for co-operation. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 23:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ammar,
Thank you for your message, and for noting my legal education.
With direct regard to the issues you raised, given the details about yourself on your user page, I understand why this matter is one of interest to you. However, this fact by itself should guide to make a greater effort to maintain your impartiality when editing such pages. For, it is you rather than I that have made a myriad of changes to a number of pages relating to the term Wahabbi. You have expunged this term completely and replaced it with Saudi. The only amendment I have made regarding these terms is to the Muhammad Ali of Egypt page where I have actually reverted back to the term used on the page before your edit.
Sadly, your interpretation of Wikipedia:Vandalism is erroneous. Crusader, Zionist, Wahabbist, are all legitimate term when used in the appropriate literary and historical sense, and do not imply any particular point of view, and are in no way vandalism. Wahabbi is a term used across the spectrum of historians, in both Arabic and English language publications, which makes its use on Wikipedia not only legitimate but required as most commonly used terms are to be used on Wikipedia. If an individual, owing to his/her own personal, political, national, or religious beliefs attaches some pejorative meaning to this or any term and wishes to substitute it for another, he/she should at least explain this within the edits he/she makes. For example, "Saudi forces (often termed Wahabbi in historical literature)", which would give the reader a fuller understanding. Simply removing it and substituting it for a term far less used in this particular historical context is guaranteed to cause confusion in the reader.
Moreover, the term "Saudi" in this context is not the most appropriate (even in the example I just offered above), and indeed it is you who should be wary of the rule against WP:COI, and against unsourced material.
For my part, I have absolutely no personal vested interest in this issue at all, and my only concerns are maintaining the accuracy of the page in an accessible literary form for the reader whilst complying with Wikipedia's regulations.
Since you are a committed contributor to Wikipedia, I trust you will receive these comments in good faith, and I would be extremely happy to further this discussion with you and to consider any additional points you would like to make. I have found that oftentimes, such exchanges can lead to an improvement in the quality, accuracy, and accessibility of pages when two contributors make the effort to understand the case put forward by the other.
Best wishes.
Louse 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- okay boss , i know i should assume good faith and i think you right , i'm going to redirect "Wahhabi rebellion" link to First Saudi State if you dont mind , for better discribtion .
- have a nice day Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Muhammed Ali Pasha.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Muhammed Ali Pasha.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikimania 2007
Hi Louse,
Wikimania 2007, which is being held in Taipei, Taiwan on August 3-5, is offering opportunities for travel scholarships to Wikimania for active users of Wikimedia projects from the continent of Africa. Although the original scholarship deadline has passed, please, if you are interested, you may still apply at Scholarships. Sincerely yours, Cary Bass15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Replacing "Israel" with "Palestine" in articles like Syria
Your "Palestine" edits are quite annoying. True, a few states don't recognize Israel and thus view a nonexistent state of "Palestine" as bordering Syria. But Wikipedia is not the place for anti-Israel fictions, pan-Arab propaganda, or Islamic-Revolutionary fantasy, but for verifiable facts.
Even if the PA could be considered a real government and even if its borders extended to the border of Syria, that alone wouldn't be enough. Consider Transnistria and its impact (of lack thereof) on the Ukraine article. Transnistria has a full governmental apparatus, its own coinage, a united military, full autonomy, and other aspects of an independent state which the Palestinian National Authority lacks. Yet the article on Ukraine, accurately, does not list it as bordering Ukraine, since its independence is not recognized the world over. Israel's is, even if a handful states deny it and insist that the legitimate country is Palestine.
Moreover, the Ukraine article also does not say that the Ukraine is part of the Soviet Union, because such an entity does not exist (like the country of "Palestine") and its successor state (Russia) does not include Ukraine (just as the predecessor of an independent Palestine, the PA, does not border Syria).
And, of course, Palestinians have no control over the Golan Heights or nearby areas. In fact, most of the Arabs in that part of the world do not consider themselves "Palestinians" but Arabs, Israelis, or Arab Israelis. Again, a few countries being in denial about this does not make it a lie.
Anyway, please stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Perhaps your user name indicates that you strive to be a mere annoyance. I hope not. It's good to have multiple, diverse viewpoints checking facts on Wikipedia pages. But it's bad when someone replaces a fact with a fiction. Calbaer 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Calbaer,
Thank you for your message. It saddens me that you appear to have a loose grasp on the facts pertaining to this issue. However, in the spirit of good faith, which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, I will endeavor to assist you in your efforts.
Firstly, in direct reference to the subject/headline of your message, I have never replaced the term Israel with the term Palestine in any article. Rather, I have re-inserted the term Palestine to be in conjunction with the term Israel to read "Palestine and Israel". I will attribute this mistake on your part merely to your over-exuberance, and I do not take offense.
Secondly, the annoyance or otherwise caused to individuals is obviously regrettable. When truthful and accurate statements are an irritation to some, I humbly suggest that such individuals seek to develop a greater affection for the truth and reduce their inclination to be partisan on such issues. Articles should not be edited inaccurately to appease those who find the truth objectionable. Rather, contributors should always be mindful of truth in their edits in a manner which seeks to avoid controversy; the best means of achieving this is to be accurate.
Thirdly, your statement that "a few states don't Israel" demonstrates that your definition of "a few" exceeds two dozen, a curious and unique definition. Please note that I have never inserted any statement in any article which denies the existence and statehood of the State of Israel. Moreover, your apparent supposition that recognition of Israel and recognition of Palestine are mutually exclusive is flawed. Egypt, Jordan, and Mauritania for example (the 3 member states of the Arab League that have diplomatic relations with Israel) recognize both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.
I am delighted to note that you agree with me that Wikipedia is not the place for fiction, propaganda, and fantasy. By accepting this basic tenet of Wikipedia, you have taken a crucial step to conforming with its regulations and spirit. I trust that your whole-hearted aversion to fiction, propaganda, and fantasy in editing extends to pages which refer the Golan Heights as not being occupied, as not being part of Syria, and as being Israeli territory - statements that are incontrovertibly erroneous and clearly nothing more than pro-Israeli, anti-Arab falsehoods. I look forward with great anticipation to reading your suggestions on how such blatant abuses of the Wikipedia editing process can be stopped.
Fourthly, I believe the basis for the problem you are clearly having in understanding the re-insertion of the term Palestine is that you may be unaware of the distinction between a country and a state. For your benefit, I will provide a brief summation:
- It is incontrovertible that Palestine was a country and a distinct geographic unit until 1948 (though obviously not a state and lacking self-government). This is not a matter of controversy and as a statement it is neither pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. Simply because Palestine was not a sovereign state does not mean that use of the term is incorrect. Terms such as India, Nigeria, Iraq, etc, were all used prior to these countries becoming sovereign states. The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 did not render the term Palestine obsolete. It remains valid as a geographic term for the entirety of the territory of the what was the British Mandate when used in conjunction with the term Israel.
- The State of Israel does not include all of the territory of the mandate and it did not suddenly become inappropriate to use the term Palestine when referring to the 22% of the mandate that does not form part of Israel (you will note that the government of Egypt, both under King Farouk and Presidents Naguib and Nasser, never annexed Gaza or made any territorial claims to it or any part of the former mandate; the official Egyptian position was that Gaza was under Egyptian administration to safeguard it against being absorbed by the State of Israel - contrast with the official policy of the government of Jordan at the time).
- The State of Palestine as declared in 1988 is a full member of the Arab League, and recognized by Arab states and many other states as a bona fide state. The fact that neither Israel nor the UN, nor a great many other states recognize the State of Palestine does not preclude use of the term. This is the case with the State of Israel, which is not recognized by most Arab and Muslim states. Use of the term Israel is not precluded by this lack of recognition.
- Those who claim that Palestine "is not yet a country" ignore the difference between the terms country and state. Once again, India was a country prior to it becoming a state. Moreover, such views ignore the fact that from the Palestinian perspective, the "establishment of a Palestinian state" means the recognition of the declared State of Palestine by Israel and the wider international community within mutually agreed borders. It does not mean that the Palestinians have revoked their declaration of statehood or that states which recognized Palestine have revoked that recognition.
- Attempts to remove references to the term Palestine on Wikipedia are akin to removing references to Israel; such editing tactics are blatant POV and proscribed. Perhaps your troubles stem from a concern that the term may be confusing due to the fact that some claim the entirety of the former mandate as belonging to the State of Palestine. However, one could also advance the argument that many claim the entirety of the mandate (and even beyond in the case of the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms) as belonging to the State of Israel. The possibility of such confusion is reduced when both terms, Palestine and Israel, are used in conjunction with one another.
I think that in view of these facts, you will find your attempted comparison with Transistria to be invalid. However, just in case you have a few lingering doubts, allow me to dispel them for you. Transistria is part of the sovereign Republic of Moldova, recognized as such internationally. Therefore, any claim to Transistrian sovereignty, valid or not, would be based on secession from Moldova. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are not part of the sovereign State of Israel. No government on Earth recognizes Israel's occupation as conferring sovereignty and all governments have rejected Israel's purported annexation of lands conquered in 1967. Indeed, Israel itself has withdrawn from Gaza and areas of the West Bank. Thus, Palestine is not an entity seeking to secede from Israel as it was never part of Israel. Once again, recognition of Israel and Palestine is not mutually exclusive.
Finally, I am obliged to point out yet another glaring error in your message. With the exception of the majority of the Druze and Bedouin communities in Israel, the overwhelming majority of the Arab citizens of Israel identify as Palestinian. Should you have the time and the inclination, you can verify this from a whole host of sources online. Most of them consider the official Israeli Government term Israeli Arab offensive. Moreover, the Arabs of the Golan Heights, who are mostly Druze, clearly do not identify as either Palestinian or Israeli because they are Syrian and identify as such, and most have refused to accept Israeli citizenship. The only state in denial about the identity of these people is Israel itself.
I implore you to make strenuous efforts to better inform yourself on these matters before you once more presume to speak with any intellectual authority on this issue. Falsely implying soapbox behavior to others without any valid substantiation while simultaneously producing a litany of easily refutable arguments is not the proper course of conduct on Wikipedia. However, I will treat all your actions, mistaken though they are, as being in good faith, and I wish you every success in seeking greater knowledge and attaining greater accuracy in your future edits.
My very best regards.
Louse 10:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will respond to some of what you say, but not all. You clearly ignore what I say at points to give your own diatribe favoring your point of view. For example, while I clearly say that Palestine is not a state, and give the example of Transnistria as a clear indication that your contributions have been inaccurate, you reply by stating how Palestine is a "country." "Country" is a not the right term here, so it's not the term I use. My home state of California has a "gold country" and a "wine country" and other countries, but you don't see those on lists of what borders Nevada or Mexico, because "countries" and "nations" aren't what matters for these lists; internationally recognized states are. And Palestine isn't one.
- There's a difference between denying that the Golan Heights is occupied and technically part of Syria, and asserting, through this fact's inclusion in the introduction to the Syria article, that the '67 war is more important to history of Syria than the Turkish annexation of Hatay, other wars Syria has been involved with, the 30-year occupation of Lebanon, the assassinations in Lebanon (especially United Nations Security Council Resolution 1595), their alignment with Iran, their role (official and alleged) in the current conflict in Iraq, their 1991 and 2002 support-via-absence for American-led UN actions against Iraq (which in 1991 was a war and in 2002 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483), their past role as the most faithful independent ally of the USSR, and their union with Egypt, the union that produced the flag Syria still uses, the flag with two stars for Egypt and Syria. The international status of the Golan Heights belongs in the body of the text, not the introduction, which should be brief. Again, this stylistic note does not deny the status, merely the importance of this status as the paramount fact of Syrian identity.
- Also, whether it is two states or two dozen states, it is still "a few" in the context of international politics, about 12% of the member states of the UN, which, by the way, in spite of its virulent anti-Israeli pro-Arab bias, views Israel as a state and Palestine as a non-state. And I have a difficult time seeing how Egypt could claim both that Israel exists and that Palestine borders Syria. Although I don't have the same knowledge of Egypt's official policy that you might, somehow think that, unlike you, it does not make this clearly wrong claim.
- Ukraine doesn't have Transnistria listed as a bordering state, nation, or country. Turkey doesn't have Iraqi Kurdistan listed as a bordering state, nation, or country. Russia doesn't have South Ossetia listed as a bordering state, nation, or country. In fact, these de facto independent states aren't even mentioned in the articles for Ukraine, Turkey, and Russia. Making an exception for Palestine — which is neither de facto independent nor bordering Syria — is fantasy, and, again, has no place on Wikipedia. Perhaps the Egyptian government taught you differently, but that doesn't make it so. (On a similar notion, please read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion so you can discover the veracity of that as well.) Yes, Palestine used to border Syria, back when it included what is now Israel, Jordan, and the territories. But it hasn't for 59 years. Just as "Soviet Union" isn't a valid border state, neither is "Palestine."
- Finally, your "correction" about the opinions of the Arab citizens of Israel is uncited. Granted, I made the statement uncited, but I didn't feel the need to, as it is largely irrelevant to the discussion, and thus it's not important whether or not you believe it. Nevertheless, if you really want to correct me, find a poll indicating the veracity of the statement. Unlike the territories and the stable Arab states, Israel proper has free speech, so such a poll should be accurate and relatively easy to find. I wouldn't be surprised if a recent poll showed that many of them did identify as Palestinian. However, I'm pretty sure that's a recent phenomenon, not one constant over the past 59 years. Again, though, that doesn't impact whether or not Palestine borders Syria, which it obviously doesn't. Calbaer 17:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arab World
Hi Louse. I have made some re-wording of a part of the paragraph dealing with the states and territories in the Arab World, but you simply reverted it out of hand without a single explanation. The main point in my edit is to separate the two different cases of Palestine and Western sahara, that some pro-Polisario activists have deliberately tried to make look identical. WS is administered by Morocco and is not synonymous with the SADR. Nothing was removed. If you have any objection to my edit, please do explain yourself. Till that, I am restoring the last version.--A Jalil 07:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Egyptian Revolutiony Flag.GIF)
Thanks for uploading Image:Egyptian Revolutiony Flag.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arab Wiki project
Are you interested ... Sign up then! [1]--Aziz1005 15:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Nasr car insignia.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nasr car insignia.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf naming issue
The correct name for the waterway is the Persian Gulf, and should not be referred to as the Arabian Gulf when using the English Language. The Persian Gulf is the preferred term in Unites States English, UK English and United Nations, as well as the Wikipedia naming policy. I do not disagree with a mention in the article Arab World which mentions that the term Arabian Gulf as a term used by certain Arab countries, but I believe that by putting Arab/Persian Gulf, it only confuses people. As there are two 'gulfs' around Arabia. The Red Sea (known as the Arabian Gulf in certain publications and the Persian Gulf. (JosephLondon 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
- Hey Joseph,
- Thank you for your kind message and for your interest in the Persian Gulf vs. Arabian Gulf naming issue. I agree with you that this matter requires the conscientious attention of Wikipedia contributors to ensure the presence of full and accurate information in the various articles which include mention of this waterway.
- With regard to your specific points:
- • As you are aware, the extent to which any term referring to territory or body of water can be judged to be the "correct name" is dependent on a whole plethora of different, and sometimes conflicting factors. The "correct name" according to one government or organization might be deemed incorrect by another. What was once the "correct name" might now be anachronistic. The descriptive quality of a name in one language, or to one culture, might not be equally valid in another. For these reasons, to state that the "correct name for the waterway is the Persian Gulf" to the exclusion of all other names or variants is far too generalized and sweeping a statement, and does not reflect the inherent complexity or nuances of such issues.
- • Any contention that Arabian Gulf is presently a valid, accepted, or even widely understood term for the Red Sea is clearly without merit. Whatever the extent of such former usage in an earlier stage in history, in the present day there are no circumstances in which any credible organization would use the term in that sense, lending credence to the above statement regarding anachronisms. Since one of the criteria you mention for correct terminology is the preferred English language and United Nations term, naturally you will accept that there is no genuine basis for using the term Arabian Gulf to refer to the Red Sea in the present day. Thus, any allegation that confusion might arise in this regard would obviously be disingenuous.
- I feel confident in stating that you were acting solely in good faith in making reference to the Red Sea issue as I myself have encountered occasions when the same claim has been advanced. Without exception, the source of all such claims has been partisan propagandist literature seeking to further a somewhat extreme form of revisionism, as can be demonstrated by even the most cursory Google search on the subject. Without adequate materials at hand to refute such claims, I can totally appreciate why one might treat this material less cautiously at first.
- Further to the above, with regard to the Arab World article itself, the primary reason I included the edit "Arabian/Persian Gulf" in the opening paragraph of the article was to immediately inform the reader of the naming issue as it is directly relevant to the Arab World article. For, in the Arab World, the term Arabian Gulf is used almost uniformly, and the very issue is one of immense sensitivity to many in the Gulf Arab states. As such, I felt that this was a wholly appropriate means of informing the reader of the two names used for the body of water, knowledge which if lacked might result in understandable confusion when encountering the different names for the first time. I had considered using "Persian Gulf (also known in the Arab World as the Arabian Gulf)", however, one might opine that such a qualification/explanation of the term is not suited to the opening paragraph of the article. Indeed, in the course of typing this message, another contributor has made the following edit "Persian Gulf (often referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabic speaking countries)", which similarly I feel is not suited to the opening paragraph.
- Moreover, as other contributors have noted and reverted, the editing history of the Arab World article has witnessed attempts to insert the term "Persian" before every mention of the term "Gulf" (e.g. "Persian Gulf states" rather than just "Gulf states"), in what might be seen as an over-compensatory measure by the same revisionist propagandists mentioned above in response to the use of "Arabian Gulf" therein, or elsewhere. As you know, this is not the standard form; in academic, political, and vernacular usage, after the first mention of the Gulf (be it prefixed with "Persian" or "Arabian"), all subsequent mention is simply of "Gulf".
- I of course recognize that "Persian Gulf" enjoys more general and longer established historical usage than "Arabian Gulf", and Wikipedia's editing guidelines direct that this fact should not be omitted or minimized. To do so would not only misinform and confuse the reader, which is the most important consideration, but would also be a gratuitous insult to Iranians and those of Iranian descent. While the sensitivities of individuals or groups should never dictate the content of articles, they are a valid consideration in the editing process. Furthermore, it is in the interests of all contributors than an acceptable, while still wholly accurate, form of words be used in all articles to avoid the severely negative consequences of edit warring.
- It is for those same reasons of accuracy, sensitivity, and pragmatism (while remaining wholly accurate) that mention should be made of "Arabian Gulf" is such a manner that the reader will be provided with the relevant facts pertaining to the issue.
- I hope this makes the my edits on this specific issue more illuminating to you. I would certainly welcome any further thoughts you have on this matter, as it is only through such amicable dialog that the shared goal of ever more accurate and informative Wikipedia articles can be realized.
- Finally, your contribution gave me impetus to reconsider the opening paragraph of the Arab World article. As you will see from the article's editing history, I rewrote most of the opening paragraph back in the Spring of 2007 to give it approximately its current form. In doing so, I neglected the fact that the Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf is not the most eastward extent of the Arab World. The most eastward extent is in fact the Gulf of Oman opening into the Arabian Sea. As such, the opening sentence would be more accurately worded as follows:
- The Arab World (Arabic: العالم العربي; Transliteration: al-`alam al-`arabi) stretches from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to the Arabian Sea in the east, and from the Mediterranean Sea in the north to Central Africa and the Indian Ocean in the south. It consists of 23 countries with a combined population of some 325 million people spanning two continents.
- Once more, I welcome your input on the ongoing editing process.
- Warmest regards. Louse 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arab World/Berber people and all other related articles
I wonder if you could correct an oft-stated/written misleading, inaccurate, and simplifified conclusion regarding the North African/Berber population. In most articles regarding the North African region, the North African population is said to descend from Berbers, which I know to be false as a native (and as is evidenced by the figures). Further, the Berber population (which is unrelated, though they have been heedlessly labeled Berber though most "Berbers" do not recognize this term) of this entire region is said to descend from so and so, which I know to be false as well. The confusion arises from the inaccurate and misleading use of sources, some of which do much to perpetuate the unpardonable inaccuracies and simplifications. Findings from studies based on samples from the Western Sahara, Mauritania, and Southern Morocco are applied to the entire North African region, that is, not only to the Western Sahara,Mauritania, and Morocco but also to Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. This is unjust, as the populations of these other countries have little to do with the aforementioned populations. In the Berber article for instance, findings based on the latter populations are said to "contradict" the former findings. This is not only absurd, but criminal. The fact is, the immensity of the region is being neglected and ignored. Here are the studies used in the articles:
redi et al, Nebel et al
"We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations. North African Y-chromosomal diversity is geographically structured and fits the pattern expected under an isolation-by-distance model. Autocorrelation analyses reveal an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion. This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East."
Borsch et al. "Different autochthonous samples from NW Africa and the Iberian Peninsula were typed. The NW African sample included blood from 29 Saharawis, 40 southern Moroccan Berbers, 44 Moroccan Arabs, and 63 north-central Moroccan Berbers. Samples from the Iberian Peninsula included blood from 37 Andalusians, 16 Catalans, and 44 Basques; the Basque individuals were also included in the study by Underhill et al. (2000). Appropriate informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study, and information about the geographical origin of their four grandparents and about their first language was recorded. DNA was extracted from fresh blood by standard phenol-chloroform protocols."
It is obviously inaccurate to regard these seemingly "contradictory" findings with puzzlement. The problem arises from the fact that the editors/writers/researchers are treating the region's diversity, a region that is more than twice as large as Europe, negligently. They are lumping a variety of cultures and peoples together. The reason why populations from Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt are found to descend from peoples that population samples from the Western Sahara, Mauritania and Southern Morocco are lesser associated with, is because these peoples are for the most part unrelated. They are not simply a homogeneous "North African" people, contrary to the stereotype generated by foreigners, who, sadly, edit articles pertaining to this region almost obsessively. Their edits are blindly and dictatorially imposed upon the public. The flawed articles are sustained by a cabal of manipulative editors, some native to the region but mostly not, compromised of- DrMaik (a Kenyan), Zerida (Egyptian, with a distinctly Copt and anti-Arab view), Collunsbury (British), Loneworld (American), Ezeu (Sub-Saharan African), FayssalF (Moroccan, and self-admittedly a reverter who pays the CONTENT and hence edits no heed) and numerous others. Several of these editors also hold administrative status, such as Zerida and FayssalF (the latter got involved at the behest of Drmaik and Collounsbury, as well as Ezeu=further manipulation of the system). Another concern is the enmeshing of Western Saharan and Mauritanian population samples with Moroccan population samples. This is unfortunate, as the West. Sah & Mauritania are not generally thought of as Maghrebian countries (?), at least not in a cultural and most especially racial context. However, many people have taken it upon themselves to redefine what constitutes North Africa, the Maghreb and the Arab World. My concern here is that this enmeshing is occuring in literature dealing with genetics, that is, a people's origin, their heritage etc. We are not simply talking about what constitutes the Arab World or how best to define Arabism.
The use of statistical UN maps further contributes to this muddle, but unfortunately serves to support newer and questionable redefinitions and reinterpretations of North Africa, the Maghreb et cetera. However, the UN maps, as the UN itself has warned, were only designed for statistical purposes. The geoscheme used by the UN Statistics Division "divides the world into 'macro regions' and subregions, all in alphabetical order." According to the United Nations,
"The scheme was devised purely for statistical purposes and is used only for carrying out statistical analysis. It does NOT imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations."
It is, therefore, inaccurate to include Sub-Saharan countries such as Sudan, Mauritania and recently, Mali or Niger in cultural and historical definitions of North Africa. The membership of some of these countries in the Arab League should have no bearing upon definitions of Mediterranean North Africa. Could you kindly look into this? Imagine a European scenario- Findings derived from a study based on samples from a population in Yugoslavia are applied to the whole of Western Europe, including Spain, England and Sweden. Another scenario still- Americans decide that Sweden and other Nordic countries ought to be included in definitions of the British Isles. They take it upon themselves to redefine history and reinterpret a peoples' identity. This would surely never occur, despite the fact that Europe is not nearly as immense geographically. They simply wouldn't stand for it, and it would never be permitted. Just thought I would bring this to your attention, as you contribute to articles pertaining to the region with a certain amount of objective zeal and are, most importantly, a native of the region. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.123.81 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Nasr 6.1.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Nasr 6.1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 10:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arab world
Dear Louse,
Thanks for the message, and the time you put into it. I must apolgise: in no way did I mean to imply any criticism of your edits, but of Psamtik1's. I now see that my summary could be misunderstood, as I named you. Your edits seemed fine, which is why I kept them.
While I'm here, could I raise a couple of issues with you. You know (I think) that I don't agree with the inclusion of Djibouti, Somalia and the Comoros as part of the Arab World, at least not prototypically. I found one Arabic (arab league?) website which did include them, but I couldn't find any others, but then I couldn't find any list anywhere (Britannica does not have an article on this), just partial ones (one incomplete list from an NGO meeting included Iran (gulp!)). How would you feel about having a section saying that the boundaries of the Arab world are not universally agreed upon, and that the defintion varies. I can say I've never heard a report about Somalia, for example, which then compared it to 'another part of the Arab World', unlike reports about Iraq, for example. And remember that it's the English-language usage that should be prioritised in English wikipedia.
And another one: North Africa. Britannica does have an article here, and there it has the 4 countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, which strikes me as normal usage (Middle East and North Africa). I sometimes hear Egypt mentioned as in North Africa (I'd include it Middle East personally), but it doesn't seem typical usage. May be split the page into North and Northern? Again, usage is not consistent, but the current page doesn't, to my mind, cover the usual defintion. What do you think? All the best, and likewise, I appreciate your efforts to bring balance to articles in this part of the world. Peace, Drmaik 17:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] South Yemen - Coat of Arms
Hi, Louse
great that you've placed the SY Coat of Arms in Wiki! Houever, it is an old symbol of this former Arab independent state - the coat of arms of the People's Republic of South Yemen (PRSY), 1967-1970. Than it was changed - by changed Arabic inscription - into the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen coat of arms, 1970-1990. If you have this one in addition?... Thank you in advance. User:Mutargim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.169.170 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Salam!!
Assalam Allaykom (Peace be upon you)
i have noticed that you are a fellow Arab wiki-User , i would like to Invite you to Join the Arab Wiki Project.
our goals are to Increase the Public's Awarness and Develop Articles that are related to the Arab world, and help each others to achieve it, we are all good in certain things, so why not complete each others to make the Arab world a more Understood region for readers in Wikipedia...
i hope you join in, and get to explore the Project more, and add your name as a member in the Project...
Ma Assalama (Peace be with you)
--Arab League User (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image source problem with Image:Nasr 7.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nasr 7.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. GeorgHH (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image source problem with Image:Nasr Florida pic.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Nasr Florida pic.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. GeorgHH (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ibrahim Pasha postage stamp.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Ibrahim Pasha postage stamp.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
