Talk:Selim Ahmed (Dahoum)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Syria Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

it's just copy and paste from here : http://www.pbs.org/lawrenceofarabia/players/dahoum.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.209.4 (talk • contribs) 19:38, February 26, 2006 (UTC)

You weren't kidding. I counted four completely new sentences and a few new parts of sentences in the whole article. The irony is that I was about to rewrite large sections of it because the prose was so bad, when I happened to check the discussion tab. Who plagiarizes badly-written bios? DCB4W 03:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been working on it trying to fix it. I had no idea it had been taken from elsewhere, but that does not mean we cannot re-write it - there are sufficient sources out there. It cannot be that the original poster has copyright - it comes from a PBS site by the looks of it. Haiduc 04:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The original poster almost certainly didn't hold the copyright-- I can't imagine a PBS official logging on to Wikipedia to post material from an obscure three-year-old web page. The article will need to be entirely rewritten, rather than be given the tuneup that I was going to give it. (I lack sufficient knowledge of the subject to rewrite it myself-- I was going to give the article a cosmetic edit.) From what I gather, though, you'll need to rewrite the article on Selim Ahmed (Dahoum)/Temp and the administrators will put it back where it belongs once they've taken a look at the copyright logs. But if you have the information to rewrite it, I think that's the appropriate next step. Good luck. DCB4W 04:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

(refrains from saying "way to backpedal, Haiduc ). This needs serious something. Linking to an article on The Knitting Circle as a reference? (shakes head-- cannot take it seriously because of the sensationalism). Never mind it's an old link with a "the link is now here". As for the article's inclusion, I'm leaning towards "delete" but it could be a keeper with a little cleanup. JaguaraTalk 03:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware there were any copyright issues left, I am sure we can deal with them if needed. As for the legitimacy of The Knitting Circle as a source, they cite sources. You are not implying by any chance that articles written by homosexuals are any less credible than articles written by heterosexuals, are you? As for clean-up, what do you find objectionable? Haiduc 03:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy and pasting an article from elsewhere, adding a little window dressing and posting it as a new entry is something most elementary school students know is bad form and plagiarism whether the copyright is active or has run out. I can understand c&p'ing it into a sandbox as a way to have source material handy is understandable but not making it into an article itself.

"You are not implying by any chance that articles written by homosexuals are any less credible than articles written by heterosexuals, are you?" No thank you for the implication I'm a homophobe, I can truthfully state that I'm not one. Now that that's out of the way, here's my take on the Knitting Circle article on Lawrence (which is longer than the bland IMDB-like bios on the site). I have trouble taking the KC article seriously merely on the basis of content and tone. It contains speculation presented as fact. For instance: "The sons were regularly beaten by Sarah Lawrence, especially Ned"-- a unelaborated line that is speculation presented as fact. In the Wikipedia article, you also repeated the KC article's author(s) manner of presenting speculation as fact. "Lawrence fell in love with the youth" is an echo of KC's "He also fell in love with the 15-year-old Arab peasant boy, Salim Ahmed, whom he called Dahoum"-- speculation presented as fact in both instances (though with far more context than the solo "abusive parent?" sentence hanging in space.

Here's another from the WP entry: "Despite Lawrence's occasional suggestions that S.A is a "composite character," modern scholars consider the initials to be Dahoum's". I doubt that 100% of modern Lawrence scholars have come to a unanimous decision. Jaguara 09:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the snide remark, however we are all best served by addressing specific issues rather than blanket denunciations of sources. As for standards of proof, first off it is really not our place to attempt to establish that - we need to be guided by usage, which here I have followed. However, if we are to briefly digress and speculate about their feelings for each other, I would suggest that you bring to mind all the uncontested actions of the two, and then picture Selim as your own son and Lawrence as a neighbor, and see where your reason guides you. I might also suggest that if Dahoum had been a woman there would be scant opposition to the suggestion that the two had been in a love relationship. Finally, please bear in mind that no conclusions about any sexual aspect to their relationship have been drawn. There is a huge gulf between love, even erotic love, as this seems to have been, and sexuality per se. Regarding your mention of "unanimity", none is implied nor is it needed or even possible. I can't really speak to the other claims of the KC article. I will however continue to look for sources for this article. Haiduc 16:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I apologize for the "backpedal" remark as well-- especially since the whole copy/paste flap was months ago. Also, thanks for scooching the threading back to left-align.

"However, if we are to briefly digress and speculate about their feelings for each other, I would suggest that you bring to mind all the uncontested actions of the two, and then picture Selim as your own son and Lawrence as a neighbor, and see where your reason guides you."

Okay, I'll give this exercise a whirl. The time period and location has to be taken into consideration, it would be absurd for me to think in 2006 Illinois customs, culture and statutes. 1912 Carchemish? Unless I caught the fellows in the act, I wouldn't think there was anything more than "that nice man is teaching my son English and my son is helping him improve his Arabic". A boy Dahoum's age was considered old enough to marry so he wasn't a child in status. Swimming nude was cited as possible proof but it is flimsy because it was the norm in many cultures and countries in that time for men to swim nude in a male-only environment.

The fact that the locals are reported to have been somewhat scandalized tells me that you may be mistaken. Again, purely speculating, it was not the sexual code that TEL may have broken. Instead, by placing a carving of the naked boy on the roof, it was the code of silence about such affairs that he was breaking. Haiduc

"I might also suggest that if Dahoum had been a woman there would be scant opposition to the suggestion that the two had been in a love relationship."

Scant opposition? If Dahoum/Selim was a young woman, became friends with TEL and was caught in his presence unaccompanied, there'd be more than "scandalous amusement"-- poor Selima would be branded a sharmouta, Lawrence an adulterer and they would likely both be punished, perhaps killed, with Selima getting the harsher punishment. Best case scenario would be someone thinking Lawrence would make a suitable husband and moving to arrange marriage.

Of course. I was referring to opposition among the historians and us moderns. Haiduc

"Regarding your mention of "unanimity", none is implied nor is it needed or even possible. I can't really speak to the other claims of the KC article."

Perhaps it's my American English but "scholars" without a qualifier makes it read like the author (in this case you, the person known on Wikipedia as Haiduc ) has concluded that all scholars believe that S.A. is Selim Ahmed with the certainty that an elm is a tree. I see you've changed that to most since I was last online. That's a little less 100%-ish.

On to other items: Sheikh Hamoudi tends to be omitted in a number of the "TEL and Dahoum were lovers"-theory articles. Hamoudi I believe shared quarters with Lawrence and Dahoum and it is definite that he and Dahoum both accompanied Lawrence on a visit to England. That doesn't discount any more-than-friends/friends-with-bennies possibility but authors keeping Hamoudi out of the picture reads like an omission of convenience.

Good point. Haiduc

The only house carving I know of at or near the Carchemish dig was a lintel that TEL carved in Hittite style-- TEL and others in the know found it amusing that some observers thought it was a genuine artifact. I did read that a gargoyle based on Dahoum was carved by Lawrence. I'm not sure which house it was placed upon but I did read that it was based on nude sketches. I'll have to pick the brains of some folks I know who are practically walking Lawrence studies encyclopedias who can point me to the reading material and sources. You might want to snip the footnotes a bit, especially the Ryouko Yagitani one-- they're starting to outgrow the main article.

Placing Selim Ahmed (Dahoum) in the Pederasty category says to me that you absolutely believe that Dahoum and Lawrence were lovers at some level. I'm certainly not opposed to Lawrence/Dahoum but my problem with you is that you have this tendency to bludgeon the reader with your opinions and conclusions. It's not the subject matter, it's your delivery of it. Jaguara 22:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you look closely at Yagitani's primary sources. The sense that comes from them, which presumably is what has led to the claims of love between the two, is that he loved the boy. The existence of those comments and fact that such a claim has been made makes it incumbent upon us to treat the matter as a possible instance of erotic love between a man and a boy. Thus the inclusion in the pederasty category. Now there are two schools of thought on pederasty. Some see it as an unqualified crime and would only level the "accusation" only if there was some sort of irrefutable proof of penetration (stains on a dress kind of thing). Others see it as an erotic relationship between a man and an adolescent, which may or may not be illegal and may or may not be sexually expressed, and are satisfied with commensurate evidence. It so happens that the former view is more in line with the opinion of the street and the latter with the usage in sexology and history. Here I feel obliged to treat the topic from a scholarly perspective and to use the second definition, which would cover a love relationship with a physical element between TEL and SA whether or not it was ever consummated in any way.

"The existence of those comments and fact that such a claim has been made makes it incumbent upon us to treat the matter as a possible instance of erotic love between a man and a boy. Thus the inclusion in the pederasty category." Uh, no. This "us" has no duty to put something in a category because of a collection of theories. I'm weary of you shoving your opinions down people's throat as fact and saying "I have proof, you're not paying attention!" Your only interest in TEL and the cryptic "S.A." are likely only as skins collected in your hunt for pederasts -- which you seem to find under every rock and between every line of text. I think you're a fatuous idiot who couches everything in big words in an attempt to make yourself look like an expert, picks and chooses what others may say and works them to your own liking and has the everloving chutzpah to post a cut-and-pasted PBS article as an entry and make it your own. I have little use for deliberately obnoxious people like you. Seriously, you're a lancinating pain in the ass. I hope you find this whole exchange amusing as all hell and you're welcome to report me to the admins as attacking or whatever else you see fit. Jaguara 07:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, but I find your animus out of place. I am not the point here - you are barking up the wrong tree. And no, I have no intention to "report" you to anyone. Feel free to address anything in the article, though. I am sure it is quite imperfect. Haiduc 15:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As for inclusion in the category, my criterion is "Would a person studying the history of pederasty be interested in this material?" Based on the sources, it would appear so, even though different people may draw different conclusions after reviewing the data. Haiduc 02:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of research by Yagitani Ryôko

Haiduc, how exactly do you justify the inclusion of (parts of) the research by Yagitani Ryôko? I'm not sure if I'm referring to the correct guideline, but I have strong reasons to believe that WP:OR strictly prohibits this. Unless you can prove it doesn't, please remove the content. Besides, it's kinda useless to include that much information from something that is already referred to by a link. --Tinctorius 12:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure how to answer your argument that it is not necessary to include material available in a link, except to say that links may disappear from one day to the next, so this is a way to preserve information. As for Mr. Yagitani's research, it may be original, but all research is original at some point, else it is not research. Darwin did original research, thank god (so to speak). The restriction on original research here targets not legitimate research, but the kind you or I might do. Our own research would have no validity until published - and then it would no longer be prohibited. However, Mr. Yagitani is not an editor here, and he is an acknowledged and published expert on the topic. Thus he is a very legitimate source indeed. Haiduc 03:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia has other ways to deal with material that might vanish, so I'd say that 'preserving information' is not an argument to include this information.
2. It's kinda... ugly; the WP:MoS doesn't mention it, but I think footnotes are not meant to include large blobs of information.
3. Wikipedia is happy to refer to original research, but we don't want to include it in our articles. That's what WP:OR is about. It keeps Wikipedia clean; not from illegitimate research, but from research itself.
4. How come I get nearly no hits on Google when I search for "Yagitani Ryôko" that might indicate acknowledgement from other historians? Could you please give me some proof?
5. FYI, it's Ms. Yagitani (or so she states on her website).

So, I don't know wether Yagitani is a legitimate source or not, but that doesn't matter here. As already stated in WP:OR, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that original research cannot be included in Wikipedia. --Tinctorius 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can check with an admin your interpretation of "OR". You seem to think it is a prohibition of scholarly work done by legitimate scholars. By your standards Wikipedia could not exist. Haiduc 00:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting WP:OR:

The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas. Original research includes [...] any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, [...] interpretations [...] published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details.

I see no evidence that the analysis of Yagatani Ryôko you quote is published by a reliable publication (thusly, not counting her personal website). This means that this article includes unpublished analysis of published material. Hence my concerns that that footnote violates WP:OR. And still, it's very ugly to contain that much information in a footnote, if it can be referred to using a simple URL. --Tinctorius 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the OR quote. It perfectly exemplifies why and how your approach is flawed. By your own submission, Yagatani's work is not covered by the OR rule because:

1. She is not trying to draw attention to her ideas.
2. She is a recognized and published scholar in her field.

By attempting to delegitimize her work you are imposing your lack of expertise for her very real one and are actually guilty of the crime you impute to her (or me).

Let me add that if she had not achieved recognition by her peers as an expert, my use of her work might have been subject to the OR rule. Seeing, however, that both points 1 and 2 above are true, that is not the case. Haiduc 11:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to reread the quotation; the original idea of WP:OR was to prevent people to draw attention to their ideas. That's why WP:OR was formed initially, but that's not the only reason why we have WP:OR right now. That she is recognized as a researcher in her field (of which I have seen no evidence so far, but let's skip that part) doesn't matter right now. The material you included is unpublished, thus it is original research, thus it cannot live on WP:OR. There are two ways to have this information included in Wikipedia:

• Provide a link to the website (as suggested earlier; including the information for backup purposes doesn't count).
• Wait until it is published, and then citing the publication.

I'm not saying she isn't legitimate, I'm just saying that a simple Google search showed few to none references to her work, and that a personal website is not a reliable medium of publication. WP:OR wasn't invented to separate scholars from researchers, it was invented to separate recognised articles/publications from the unrecognised (or simply unpublished) ones.

And again, footnotes (probably) aren't meant to include huge blobs of information. --Tinctorius 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: There are a lot of issues here. First, I don't think WP:OR applies here, as WP:OR applies to unsourced claims or unwarranted conclusions drawn from sources. WP:OR depends on WP:RS and WP:V to define what counts as a reliable source, and that seems to be the issue here. The source for footnote 10 appears to be a personal website; it appears one side here is claiming Ms. Yagitani falls under the "well-known, professional researcher" exception to WP:V#SELF, while the other side is disputing that claim. I have no way to determine if that claim is true or not, but I would suggest trying to find an applicable statement in a more reliable source. If you can't do that, try asking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for more opinions about the homepage.

As for the length of the footnote, I think there is definitely too much material in the quote. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text for more information. If a footnote is necessary at all, as opposed to a simple reference to the source, summarize the relevant information. Anomie 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's one helluva footnote. Move it into the body of the article. PiCo 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "A Photograph from Carchemish"?!

Come on... This corny poem is obviously fake! Never saw it printed anywhere. I vote for its removal.Orlando F 02:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

http://books.google.ca/books?q=%22the%20pistol%20asleep%20in%20your%20young%20groin

The year of death (1916) doesn't match that given in the main article on Lawrence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.94.135 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)