Vital articles: Level 5 / Geography B‑class
Siwa Oasis has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Geography (Physical). If you can improve it, please do.Vital articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital articlesTemplate:Vital articlevital articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Egypt B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · AP · TWL

Text and/or other creative content from Siwa Oasis was copied or moved into LGBT history with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.

The external link to the CNN site is no longer valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.15.246 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How large is the oasis? Is this just one lake with vegetation around it or several lakes? 69.129.145.7 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article lacks completely an explanation why Siwa is an oasis and its geological background. Why is there a lake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.229.67.53 (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My understanding is that Siwa Oasis had, until relatively recently, a culture somewhat different from that of the Nile Valley, and that some of their practices gave rise to conflicts with the nominal values of the latter area. Perhaps more on the art styles, history, society and culture, and relation to what might loosely be termed Libyan cultural areas, of Siwa Oasis would be within the scope of the article.FurnaldHall (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why was bathing in the pool regarded as "Sacrilege"? This makes no sense since the inhabitants are Muslims, not Egyptian reconstructionist pagans... the German article offers the opinion that it is, but not that this was how the people of the Oasis saw things. This should be removed. Paul S (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly because being the only oasis and therefore source of potable water for several hundred miles, using the only source of drinking and cooking water for bathing might not be a good idea if one wants to remain on friendly terms with the locals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although it might be worthy of inclusion, why is this section on the Anti-Jewish attitude in a Muslim area with no Jewish inhabitants (i.e. it shouldn't be surprising) longer than the rest of the article? Even the "Non-Entry of Non-Muslims" section of the Mecca article is shorter. I can think of no reason other than to be inflammatory. 214.13.35.169 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken out some of the quotes to shorten this section. However, simply citing the article is insufficient as doing so fails to convey the extremely inflammatory and racist nature of the specific sentiments of the people interviewed, e.g. "we can smell if someone is a Jew." Surely statements of this nature are notable.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The "we can smell" guy is simply an idiot, I believe. Do you think he represents the opinion of the citizens of Siwa well? The other two seem more intelligent. If I lived at Siwa, I would probably resent being represented here by an "alternative therapist". – Alensha ^talk 00:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "we can smell" guy is only one of the people interviewed. Others include a Egyptian MP from the area and a local tribe leader. There are also other people interviewed that I agreed not to include to keep this section to a reasonable size. Comments like this that are made on an internationally broadcast television show are certainly notable. Again, if you have a source that provides a counterpoint (or indicates that the source already cited is incorrect), please present it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I have abridged this section further and given it a more encyclopedic and more general title. More importantly, I have added the context of the quotes - they were elicited specifically in response to allegations of Israeli ties with Siwa. Anyone who wants to view the quotes can simply follow the references (and, incidentally, I've added a link to the full transcript of the program in Arabic - a much better source than MEMRI for those who can use it.) I don't see any need for more than a summary, any more than (say) the rather long Awlad Ali quotes about the "friendship" system that I have summarised in a sentence. And such a summary should of course reflect statements whose gist was repeated by several sources, not outlandish ones (like the ridiculous "we can smell if someone is a Jew") restricted to a single interviewee. I emphasise that even as I've left it, the section has a highly disproportionate focus on Jews - relations with Nile Valley Egyptians, Bedouins, Western tourists, and even Chinese tourists all play a much more important role in Siwi society. With the quotes included, the disproportion would reach absurd levels. - Lameen Souag (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have restored most of what you removed. Your summary leaves all of the other comments made by people interviewed during the program and gives the impression that the additudes held by residents of Siwa toward Jews are far less extreme than those provided in the MEMRI video. I have already agreed to remove most of the quotes from other interviewees (which were far more disturbing and racist than those remaining) but I feel that removing all of them (and replacing them with your summary) provides an incomplete picture of this situation - it is clear that the residents of Siwa hold a negative and hostile additude towards Jews. There is no reason why this this article cannot provide more context regarding these views.

I realize this is a sensitive topic, so I welcome any criticism or comments.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I have several objections to the approach you have adopted that I believe most readers will share.

First: "Jews not welcome in Siwa" is manifestly not an encyclopedic heading. It might be useful in WikiTravel, I suppose, but Wikipedia is not here to offer travel advice.

Second: your current phrasing gives the erroneous impression that the other residents quoted were not responding to the allegation. The only one who was not explicitly responding to the allegation was the alternative therapist, and he too was no doubt aware of the context (the allegation of Israeli links made quite a stir in Siwa - a lot of Siwis complained to me about it at the time.)

Third, and most importantly: Filling an article with long quotations almost always makes it look unprofessional. Doing so on an issue totally peripheral to the topic of the article (Siwa has no Jewish population, and there is no evidence that it has ever had one) simply leaves ordinary readers with no stake in Middle Eastern edit wars wondering what on earth is going on. If you feel that my summary of the quotes gave an incomplete picture, perhaps you could suggest an alternative wording? I believe the following is an exhaustive list of themes appearing in more than one person's quotes:

• there are no Jews in Siwa (Shaykh Omar, Musa Umran)
• Siwis do not have or want relations with the Jews (Shaykh Omar, Musa Umran)
• Jews do not and should not attend the Siyaha (mistranslated as "tourism") festival (Muhammad Salih, anonymous)
• this is because Siwa sides with the Arabs in the Arab-Israeli conflict (Shaykh Omar, Bilal Ahmad)

You could stretch a point and unify Bilal Ahmad's "despise Israelis" and Anonymous' "hate Jews" into "hate Israelis / Jews" (most Siwis aren't really conscious of the difference between the two) but that's already getting dubious. In any case, a sentence or two should be more than enough to summarise the quotes fairly, concisely, and neutrally. - Lameen Souag (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more point: you appear particularly concerned to keep the "smelling Jews" quote. Obviously I don't think any quotes from the show longer than a word or two belong here, but even as regards the summary: this article is about Siwa. Beliefs and attitudes widely held by Siwis are relevant here; ones held only by a single Siwi are not (and would not be notable in any case, unless he was famous.) The show confirms that a number of Siwis hold attitudes along the lines of my summary above. It does not show that anyone except this alternative therapist imagines that they can "smell Jews". If you can offer evidence that this idea is held by anyone else in Siwa, perhaps it should be kept (there is a quite extensive literature on the anthropology of Siwa for you to search through.) However, the only reason you have offered for keeping it is its "extremely inflammatory and racist nature". If that were sufficient to make an isolated statement by an otherwise non-notable person notable, then every article on a major town would be full of quotes like these. - Lameen Souag (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My response: The gentleman who has remarkable confidence in his Olfactory sense demonstrates clearly that the attiudes held by the people of Siwa are against "Jews" and not simply against Israelis, although your new summary makes this point clearer than before. However, your summary leaves out the fact that the interviewees have made it clear that they not only hate Jews and Israelis and that no Jews live in Siwa, but that Jews are also not welcome in Siwa.. This is an important point because Jews are the only religious/ethnic group that are unwelcome in Siwa - that is why this material has its own section. I'll agree to remove some of the quotes but I will adjust the summary to reflect the points I have cited.

The other interviewees specifically state that they refuse to provide services to Jews and become hostile and apprehensive whenever they think they have discovered that someone in their immediate vicinity is of the Jewish faith or ethnicity. However, I've agreed not to include this.

With regard to your comment about the language used, Wikipedia does not censor language when quoting - even controversial language (if properly sourced). Also, if there are any other tourist destinations in the world that ban specific ethnic/religious groups, I doubt that their Wikipedia entries would not relect this.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I've travelled extensively throughout the Middle East and Egypt. I spent 2 weeks at Siwa Oasis, specifically, in 2006. I'm also Jewish. I think it is absurd for this section to even exist on the page for Siwa Oasis. There is such a wealth of history that should be elaborated on for this location, not to mention the geologic facts of the oasis, before the mention of this absurdity. This entry could apply to absolutely any community in the entire Arab world. I'd like to add a (reasonable) voice to the discussion that suggests that this section be made even less conspicuous or be removed entirely. It has one point and one point alone, and that is that anti-semitism exists in the Arab world. You could go to absolutely any community in the Arab world and interview individuals in the street and get the exact same quotes as found here. If this belongs anywhere, it is on the page for Anti-Semitism, as an example of the widespread hype-driven and institutionalization of the issue in the Arabic world. This is not unique to Siwa, it is not more noticeable at Siwa, in fact, it is not noticeable at all there. In two weeks in Siwa I personally witnessed no public anti-semitism whatsoever, compared to say, Cairo, where Mein Kampf was for sale in the train station. As far as refusing service to Jews, this is absurd. Despite the words of the idiots interviewed by Al Jazeera, I'm quite certain Siwans have absolutely no idea which of the thousands of tourists they see pass through every year are Jewish. So that further precludes any relevance for this topic on this page.

Siwa has traditionally always had a suspicious attitude towards all strangers (ie people not from the oasis!) and this attitude in the recent past has been more markedly fervent towards Egyptians, Europeans, Arabs and Romans than towards any Jews or Israelis, with whom the Siwans have NO history. For centuries the Siwans resisted and fought the Arabs themselves, so in that sense, throughout most of their history the Siwans have been extremely anti-semitic, the semites being the ARABS! The Siwans resisted Egyptian nationalism as recently as this century and didn't even have a direct transportation link to the modern world until the 40's. These topics are all of considerably more interest and relevancy to the oasis than whatever verbal anti-semitism could be brought forth by an Al Jazeera microphone.

The overwhelming majority of people coming to this page are going to be looking for historical, scientific, and cultural information about a fascinating place, lets give them more of that, and less of these ridiculous politics.Trefalcon (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad you had a fun time when visiting Siwa. Unfortunately, your own experiences and opinions are original research. If you have a source that contradicts the Al-Jazzera program (i.e. that Jews/Israelis are not hated or banned from Siwa) please indicate it. The statements made during the program (that Jews are not welcome in Siwa) are hardly "ridiculous politics." It may not reflect kindly on the residents of Siwa, but that only does not mean that the material is bias or improper. Again, if you are so certain that the Al-Jazzera program is misrepresenting Siwa, feel free to cite a source that indicates this - so far, all you have provided is your own views on Siwa's residents and your own opinions (e.g. "I'm quite certain Siwans have absolutely no idea which of the thousands of tourists they see pass through every year are Jewish."). Finally, you claim that these attitudes are common throughout the Arab world - even if this is true, it doesn't change the fact that Siwa residents hold certain beliefs and opinions about Jews that have been broadcast on International Television.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

In any given city in Egypt I can easily give you five people who are willing to say the same things about Israelis /Jews. They will probably represent what most people feel, but they are not official representatives of the community they are speaking for. Unless WP can source it, it is wrong to give the impression that these Siwis are on an official mission. Who sent them, the mayor, the local council or the council of the ruling tribal shieks? Do tell. Also understand that after such allegation, these people feel obliged to defend themselves after having been insulted on TV (an insult it is, to them, unfortunately) and to save face, they do what they have to do. Understand Egypt and Siwa; this what is said has nothing to do with how they will treat visiting Israelis. As anyone who has spent a considerable time in Siwa know, jewish money is as welcome as any other money and indeed, even jewish visitors are returning vistors. The community is certainly not hostile as this text is suggesting; this reality should be reflected. I understand the difficulty in finding sources but undue weight is still undue weight and cannot be defended with "say and source the opposite when you can". And please, do use the original source, whatever is translated by Memri is questionable, it is not an independent organisation, it has a mission; I myself enjoy their work but it's not objective.Ancientkingdom (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have any evidence that the MEMRI translation is inaccurate, please provide it. (Your claim that "whatever is translated by MEMRI is questionable" is not only extremely dubious - out of several thousand translations, only a handful contain mistakes.) MEMRI includes not only a transcript but the original video as it was broadcast on Al-Jazeera.

More to the point, you make several claims (among them):

• "this what is said has nothing to do with how they will treat visiting Israelis"
• "jewish money is as welcome as any other money"
• "jewish visitors are returning vistors"
• "The community is certainly not hostile as this text is suggesting"

However, you do not provide a source for any of them (except through your own claims and statements). If you have a source that indicates that the people Siwa don't really mean what they said in the Al-Jazeera, please cite it, but unfortunately, we can't take your word for that.

To put this in perspective, if the mayor and religious leaders of a resort town in the United States made similar statements about Jews (or Muslims, Hindus or Buddists for that matter) on an internationally televised news program, it would certainly be considered notable in Wikipedia.

As for your statement that "after such allegation, these people feel obliged to defend themselves after having been insulted on TV (an insult it is, to them, unfortunately) and to save face," I think that statement speaks for itself: You are effectively acknowledging that Jews are (to put it extremely mildly) not held in high regard in Siwa or Egypt and that suggesting otherwise is insulting to them (if that's not anti-Jewish, I'm not sure what is). If you watch the video, the other interviewees make far more derogatory statements (e.g. the "we can smell" guy) but I have agreed to not to include them in this article.

Again, if you want to cite a source that indicates otherwise (i.e. that supports any of your claims) please do so.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Everyone can view the history of this article and see no consensus on including this section. Hyperionsteel is the only one person determined to keep it, mainly because of MEMRI. Zequebe (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As stated above, the fact that Jews are not welcome in Siwa is certainly relevant to this article. If residents of a prominent town/county in the United States made these types of statements about a certain ethnic/religious group on an internationally broadcast television program, it would certainly be included in it's Wikipedia article. Again, if you believe the MEMRI translation is inaccurate, please cite a source which indicates this.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

MEMRI has selectively translated this particularly offensive case in order to portray these statements as representative of Siwa. Again, there is clearly a consensus to remove this section. Zequebe (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, there is not a consensus to remove this section. It is properly sourced - not only has MEMRI's translation been cited, but the original article and video on Al Jazeera has also been provided. You claim that "MEMRI has selectively translated this particularly offensive case in order to portray these statements as representative of Siwa"; however, you have not provided any evidence to support this claim. In fact, nobody has provided any evidence that MEMRI's translation of the original Al-Jazeera report is inaccurate or misleading. Based on the content of your user page (User:Zequebe), it's clear that you possess a palpable hatred of MEMRI which I sense may be clouding your judgment on this matter. Please think it over before reverting properly sourced material. On a different issue, you argue that these statements are not representative of Siwa, yet you have not cited any sources in which Siwa residents provide alternate opinions about Jews. And yes, these statements do not reflect very highly on the residents of Siwa, but that alone is not a reason to remove this material from the article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Me too I can sense your motivations and what seems to be your primary purpose here, to include any number of MEMRI works in a number of article on wikipedia. Zequebe (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I do a lot more than add material sourced from MEMRI to Wikipedia articles. But please take note, my user page doesn't contain any endorsements or praise for MEMRI. In contrast, the only item on your user page is a smear of MEMRI and a link to a website that appears to be an inefficacious knockoff of Wikipedia - hence my suspicion that you possess a palpable animosity towards MEMRI and that your editing of Wikipedia articles reflects this animosity.

Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand, you still haven't cited any evidence to support your claims regarding this section. As for the issue of consensus, I will point out that no consensus was reached - this debate ended in May 2011 and hasn't been revived until now (by you). If you want to reopen the debate, please feel free to, but please don't remove material simply because it is taken from a source that you have placed at the top of your s&@% list.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

There is nothing hateful to denounce or expose the true nature of MEMRI, rather it is MEMRI which promotes hatred against ethnic or religious groups and you dont need my link to see that, there is a large section in the article about MEMRI on wikipedia exposing its shameful practices. Zequebe (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for proving my point about your obsessive animosity regarding MEMRI. Now, getting back to the more important issues, do you have any evidence or can you cite any sources that suggest that the MEMRI translation cited in this article is inaccurate or misleading? Does the original Al-Jazeera article (which is also cited in this article) provide a different context for these remarks? If you could provide something tangible that supports your position, I look forward to reading it. Otherwise, please stop removing material simply because the source doesn't meet your standard of approval.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Reply[reply]

I changed the title of this section to "Views on the Arab-Israeli conflict" it is more appropriate than "Relations with Jews". All Jews are not Israelis and supporters of the state of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Барьер (talk • contribs) 00:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, many of the comments made by the individuals that were interviewed are specifically about Jews. While these views have certainly been shaped by the Israel/Palestine conflict, it does not change the fact that they are about Jews (i.e. the Israel/Palestine conflict may be the reason why the Siwi residents interviewed hate Jews, but that doesn't change the fact that they do hate Jews (I.e. the cause of their hatred should be (and is) cited, but the hatred itself should not be obfuscated). (Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The title of the short video made and translated by Memri "Egyptian Berbers Defend Themselves against Accusations of Being Jew-Lovers: We Can Smell if a Tourist Is Jewish" is misleading and implies antisemitism, while the response given concerns this: "the third reason is that some people of Siwa protested about a previous episode because one of the guests spoke of a strong relationship between Israelis and these parts of the Egyptian oases".

The persons in the video are responding to this declaration and so when they say "Jews", they are refering to the Jews of Israeli nationality and not to the entire Jewish people or religious community.

Sorry, but the individuals quoted in this video do not make that distinction; None of those interviewed indicate (directly or indirectly) that when they are referring to "Jews", they are only referring to "Jews of Israeli nationality." If you have a source that supports your claim, please cite it. Otherwise, it's a bit of a stretch for you to claim that when these individuals make statements such as "we can smell if someone is a Jew," "The Jews have nothing to do with Siwa... We hate the Jews more than anything else in the world," "We do not accept Jews here on principle," or "[Siwans] will not accept any relations whatsoever with the Jews," that they are indeed referring to "Jews" and are not making a distinction between Jews who hold Israeli nationality and those who do not.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Anyway the source who provided the translation is not objective about the Arab-Israeli conflict: "The institute was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born, American political scientist. MEMRI states that its goal is to "bridge the language gap that exists between the Middle East and the West". Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions."[1]. So it is easy to understand why Memri only focused their attention on these sequences of a 48 min video about the history of Siwa.

I did some minor edits to make it more objective.

The link to the original article (in Arabic) is provided as well. If you feel the translation is inaccurate, or if you have a source that indicates/suggests that the translation is inaccurate, please cite it.

Unfortunately, none of those interviewed in this program make no distinction between "Jews" and "Israeli Jews." Rather, this is your own interpretation, based on the rather dubious assumption that because this article deals with the Arab/Israeli conflict, that those interviewed must somehow only be referring to "Israeli Jews" when they say "Jews." If you want to put this interpretation forward, you will need to provide a source to support it - your own interpretation is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Those Siwa residents interviewed clearly use the term "Jew" or "Jews" - Some of them do use the term "Israelis," but never once is the term "Israeli Jews" used. If it looks like a duck and quacks like duck, then it's usually a duck. In this case, when the Siwa residents use the term "Jews" they are referring to "Jews", regardless of their nationality or place of origin.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I didnt say that their translation is inaccurate, what I meant is that they give a image of Siwa which it is not objective. It is not a personal interpretation, the interviewees are replying to the claims of a person, who stated that Israel is forming ties with Siwa because 20 israeli buses came during the festival. Even in the original source Al Jazeera, under the video they indicated "Israelis" and not "Jews":

- هبة البلح والماء والزيتون ورفض الإسرائيليين (- Gift of dates, water, olives, and refused to Israelis). So I dont need to provide a source that we already have.

As I have pointed out, some of those interviewed do refer to "Israelis." However, many of those interviewed refer specifically to "Jews" without any distinction regarding nationality or place of origin. To claim, as you seem to be doing, that all of those interviewed only hate "Israelis" or "Israeli Jews" and somehow don't hate "Jews" (despite them using the term "Jews") is a bit of a stretch. The simple fact is these individuals do hate "Jews" (their hatred of Jews may be motivated by the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the cause of the hatred is not relevant to the fact that this hatred does exist) and I fail to see why this should not be reflected in the article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Floodmap Oasis Depressions.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Siwa Oasis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222140106/http://byebyenet.com/Egypt/Oasis/siwa.htm to http://byebyenet.com/Egypt/Oasis/siwa.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019235310/http://www.storm247.com/weather/11503086/climate to http://www.storm247.com/weather/11503086/climate
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019235120/http://www.storm247.com/weather/11503079/climate to http://www.storm247.com/weather/11503079/climate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Wikipedia:No original research, I removed the Controversy over Jewish and Israeli tourists section. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research based on primary sources. Any analysis or synthesis should be based on reliable secondary sources instead. --Hyperzion (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What evidence is there that the oasis was (or is) called ⲥⲓⲟⲩⲁϩ in Coptic? At the moment this is uncited. - Lameen Souag (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section reads (unsourced): “The practice probably arose because from ancient times unmarried men and adolescent boys were required to live and work together outside the town of Shali.”

This is an incorrect and outdated view. People do not “turn gay” due to exposure to the same sex. They are either born gay or not. Gold333 (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC) That's just like, your opinion bro CantingCrew (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Gold333, I just removed the sentence under WP:BURDEN. You're right, gay practice existing cannot have arisen from living arrangements. The practice being accepted, perhaps. But we lack a source for that, too. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 15:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Urban oasis" means a park surrounded by a city. Where is the city? Marnanel (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]