Talk:Negev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Negev is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Discussion

Why is "Nageeb" linked/re-directed to "Negev"? I don't see any possible connection.

Rawlsian 00:27, 5 April 2006

It's pretty unlikely, but it can be a typo. Typically, we make possible typos into redirects. --Nlu (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with everyone else. Gilgamesh - you cause nothing but trouble. You always edit Israel-related articles and ruin them, and its starting to look very suspicious. I am Israeli myself, hebrew is my first language, and i can't undestand anything with those anoying symbols like "Négev". Its not proper hebrew(in hebrew its pronounced "Negev" no latin pronunciations), and it makes things harder for English-speakers too, so stop it ! For example when you tried to ruin the article about Eilat, you said "i didn't know Eilat was such a known town", let me give you an advice then - if you don't know something - don't write about it in Wikipedia ! and from what you wrote about Israel in all your articles, you don't know much about it.

Maglanist 00:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm getting a bit tired of these supposedly-linguistic changes people are making to Israel-related articles which are making them much less useful. Where the does the silly accent in the current name of the article - "Négev" - come from??? Since Hebrew does not get written in Latin characters, you can't tell me it comes from the original Hebrew. In that case, the name of the article needs to be the name as commonly written in English (which is the language the English Wikipedia is written in :)) - and that is "negev" - without any accute-accent on the first e.

If by adding this accute-accent someone tried to make this Israeli region sound more "exotic", then, well, maybe he succeeded. But it didn't help anything else. It doesn't help understanding how to pronounce it (the two vowels in this word sound exactly the same), it doesn't help to know where to put the stress (English or French people will not even know that the accent could possibly indicate stress!). And it doesn't help when you write an English document about the Negev, and when people expect it to be written like that, without any accent.

If you still don't believe me, try googling for Negev and get myriads of results. Then Google for Négev and see a bunch of Wikipedia clones :( Nyh 14:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is simply a more accurate Latin script transliteration convention for Hebrew. You see, in Hebrew it is regular for the accent to be on the last syllable. But then this is not the case, an acute mark can be placed over the accented syllable to show that it — rather than the last syllable — is accented. It is not "exotic", it is linguistic. - Gilgamesh 22:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gilgamesh, you don't seem to understand what I wrote above. It wasn't a case against linguism - it's a case for common usage and common sense. When somebody goes down to write the name of this region in English he or she usually writes "Negev", like that. Sure, that doesn't accurately capture the pronunciation. Americans might even be tempted to pronounce it "nee-jev", or who knows how, but these are the people who pronounce "nuclear" as "noo-kew-lar" ;) But it doesn't matter - to explain the proper pronunciation that we can write the pronunciation in parantheses. People still write it as "Negev", and only like that, as you can see in any search-engine you want. The name of the article, and the English name we use refer to the Negev througout the article should be the way it is typically written in English. This has nothing to do with linguistics. Linguisticly, Haifa shouldn't be called "Haifa", Israel should have a trema (or apostrophe) in its name, and "Germany" should perhaps be properly called Deutchland. "enough" should be spelt "eenuf". So what? This is an English encyclopedia, and it should reflect the names used in written English texts. And I want to state again: most readers will not know what the accent is supposed to mean or why you placed it there. Greek-readers or linguists might guess it's a stress thing, but other people might think this is some sort of different vowel that is somehow supposed to sound differently, or some relic of history like is common in French. I can't see how this helps anything or anyone. And, even if you do want to explain where the stressed sylable is - the custom (e.g., in dictionaries) is to do it once, and not throughout the article - and I think that certainly not in the name of the article. You're only causing redirection hell, with everyone probably linking to Negev, not Négev. Nyh 07:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It is not a bad thing to include diacritic detail in the transliterations of names in Wikipedia, particularly if this is common and preferred (as in Wikipedia style guides) for names from other languages in article texts. "Redirection hell" is not my concern, as that is an issue of MediaWiki performance, and should be discussed in talk pages for that topic. Encyclopedias are here to teach readers things they did not previously know, and thus it is good to add detail they have not before encountered. If articles only reflected what people already knew, they would be useless. I appreciate that some people who use simpler transliterations without diacritics in many article texts, but that is merely a shorthand for the full form which is preferred in articles. Ideally, proper transliterations should be used in all cases, with alternative spellings also provided to benefit search engines. The forced removal of diacritics is a POV practice that I oppose, and that I revert. It is the duty of a responsible editor. - Gilgamesh 08:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nyh. A casual reader will not understand why the accent is placed here. It is simply not an accepted convention of the English language to mark stress, in foreign words or otherwise. An encyclopedia shouldn't invent its own spelling conventions. An accepted method of indicating pronunciation is by using the IPA, and that should go near a word definition. --i@k5 09:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Honestly, this is a proper place name and as such, should be spelled as it is used by those who know the pronunciation. Any information about articulation/prosody could easily be put in a pronunciation gloss following IPA conventions-- not in the title! David80 (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eilat and Negev

See my comments on Talk:Eilat: "Gilgamesh is at it again: Gilgamesh is determined to remove the Hebrew language from its normal rational historical moorings under cover of "scholarly" arguments, as he believes that the Jews do not have "exclusive" rights to their own language! That is perhaps why he persists in creating havoc with Hebrew names whenever he finds them, regardless of the naming conventions that are accepted and used by the whole world such as with "Eilat". See for example my debates with him at:

When he will stop his useless and confusing tamperings with Hebrew is anyone's guess." IZAK 09:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, you are exhausting. I have every bit as much right to study, practice and share Hebrew as you do — no more, no less. You have a good knowledge of Torah details — find some articles to add to, as you normally do. I really don't care to respond to your bewildering paranoia and lashon hara. - Gilgamesh 10:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh by resorting to name-calling, you are avoiding the issues, i.e. the way you arbitrarily edit the Hebrew language words on Wikipedia in a manner that is weird to most people familiar with present-day Hebrew usage and presentability. Why don't you follow your own advice and stick to articles about Mormonism. Or would you like me to start editing all the Mormon articles with a fine tooth-comb in hand? IZAK 07:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I never once told you to edit exclusively Torah articles. I told you to make productive edits. And for another thing, I did not call you names. I said you are exhausting, because you exhaust me, and make me feel exhausted. See exhaustion. And if you think my edits are unusual, I'm sorry but I don't practice Israeli Hebrew. I know things about it, but I specialize in paleolinguistics, e.g. dead/frozen/liturgical languages. I'm much slower to study vernaculars. I never said that if I truly made an edit mistake, that no one could correct my mistakes. And why on earth are you making this about sectarianism? Why on earth should you by default assume that I make edits with a "Mormon" agenda, or any agenda at all? This is about science and academics, and in that respect we are all equal. And I strive for courtesy and mutual respect, though it has been much more difficult when you throw a tantrum. There's nothing that says you can't add and revise detail of articles that are closer to my studies. For one moment, think of us as two editors, two people, two human beings. I work every day to get check my objectivity. Your responsibility is no different — get over yourself, because in Wikipedia, religion and ethnicity make neither of us special, nor entitled, nor better nor worse than anyone else. Are you so insecure? Because I have never doubted your competency as a Rabbinical Torah scholar nor as an Israelite, and you should not belittle my competency as a scientist — it benefits no one, least of all yourself. It also has the effect of making you that much harder for other editors to work with, inviting a frenzy of ever-toxic lashon hara. Therefore, I suggest you work with people using cooperation and constructive criticism, rather than trying to pick nihilistic fights. - Gilgamesh 07:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "South" and/or "dry"

In some sources, like [1], [2] and other Wikipedias there are indications that Negev, besides or instead of "south", denotes or denoted "dry". What is true about that? Nethency 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mariam Shahin's book, Palestine: A Traveler's Guide

This is not a reliable source for the referenced subject matter. It is an odd place to seek historical, archaeological and related information.

Noted historian Daniel Pipes has said about Mariam Shahin's book, Palestine: A Traveler's Guide:

"Perhaps the book's strangest aspect is the pretense that Israel does not exist." "Conceptualized as a propaganda tool, the guidebook contains more than its share of inaccuracies. The first page falsely informs that 'Palestine is a Holy Land to Muslims.' The assertion that 'archeologists have yet to verify the historic existence' of the Temple of Solomon is laughable nonsense. And Lord Balfour was hardly 'of Jewish descent.' " -Doright 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes is a partisan who regularly attacks all things associated with the Palestinians, to quote: "Therefore, to those who ask why the Palestinians must be deprived of a state, the answer is simple: grant them one and you set in motion a chain of events that will lead either to its extinction or the extinction of Israel."
According to Amazon's editorial reviews, it was reviewed positively in UK-based The Independent:
""Hugely impressive... deeply researched, written with flair and passion, and enriched... with Azar's beautiful photography."
Feel free to bring in additionally sources that either conflict or reinforce, but it is nonsensical to simply delete it based on the opinion of a partisan. --Abnn 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To both of you: please don't post exactly the same thing on multiple pages. I have never seen Shanin's book so I don't have an opinion on its reliability. I'll just note that a negative review by Pipes only means it isn't biased in the same partisan direction as himself. And he can't even get the name of the book right, as Tiamut noted. Funnily, the other review I found (in the Journal of Palestine Studies) starts "This book is not a guide as in a 'tourist guide'". Anyway, putting all that aside, if we discard a source purely on the basis of one negative review then we might as well give up on writing about the Middle East. Fact is, every book about the Middle East gets negative reviews from the partisans of one side or the other. --Zerotalk 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] POV

This article has an overtly anti-Israel POV. For example, it cites to articles promoting academic boycotts of Israel: http://www.monabaker.com/pMachine/more.php?id=A1909_0_1_0_M Further, it virtually ignores Jewish history in the region, focusing exclusively on Bedouin. 141.166.154.239 (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add material you feel is missing from the article to achieve the balance you seek, rather than deleting sourced and relevant info already there. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 13:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree there should be more about Israelis in this article. If you want to see it there, put it in yourself! Don't delete this factual information about Bedouin. You may not like these facts, and you may not like some of the sources. But this does not warrant deletion. Furthermore, others might say that while it does indeed treat the Bedouin extensively, it is also a very Israeli-left perspective on the Bedouin, not a Palestinian perspective. For instance, I added the word Naqab, the Arabic word for Negev, and what the inhabitants of the region have called it for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It was deleted today. It is a fact that the Negev Desert is called the 'Negev' among Israelis, but among Arabs, in teh Arabic language, it is called the 'Naqab.' Why delete this fact? Refcahman (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)