Archives

1, 2

Edit with VisualEditor

It seems that you have developed a habit of making statements along the lines of many sources say, most academics say, or similar with no evidence to support same. I believe editor Iskandar has mentioned this as well. The latest case being at 2023 East Jerusalem synagogue shooting where it was trivial to disprove your edit summary "most sources describe Neve Ya'akov as a Jewish area of East Jerusalem (the term "settlement" is used by Al-Jazeera only, and "neighborhood" by Israeli media)".

Please don't do this. Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have developed a habit of directing me personally, since I typically don't hold the same views as you do with ARBPIA issues. After a second check, only 5 of the 14 sources cited in the article used that term, but somehow you prefer the minority view over the other, more neutral options. Please don't do this. Tombah (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ONUS is on you to prove statements that you make. Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires you to strive for neutrality, but you consistently seem to favor the viewpoint of one particular side. That is a problem. Tombah (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with my editing, then take it up first with me on my talk page, not make such an accusation only when I raise a problem with your editing on your talk page. Recall that this section is actually about your making unfounded assertions. Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a late reply but speaking on Wikipedia’s point of neutrality I would concur with Tombah that for a factual article you need to have both sides and cannot uses sources from Al Jaazera only. Salandarianflag (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tombah. You've 'restored' things twice today, as noted in your edit summaries, in two separate edits. This is two reverts, within 24 hours, again. You know what you need to do. Please stop making this something that you need to be reminded of. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry, I didn't consider it to be a breach of 1RR because there were two restorations of distinct materials, but if you say it is, you are probably right. Anyway, I notice that others have already reverted my edit. Tombah (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The revert rules apply to the same or different material. See WP:3RR for more details. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I intend to revert it back right now. Several days have passed, and the ONUS, as far as I know, is on the ones who want the change the material. Tombah (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Khirbet Kurkush, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that archeologists disagree about whether the ancient necropolis discovered in Khirbet Kurkush (tomb pictured) was used by Jews, Samaritans or pagans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Khirbet Kurkush. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Khirbet Kurkush), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yaroun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victor Guerin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please clean up the mistakes you have inserted about people paying Jizya tax in the Sanjak Nablus in 1596. (How on earth do you get a wholly Muslim popualtion to pay Jizya??) Again, please read Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, 1977, p.74, which explains it, Huldra (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra, that's how Zertal renders it in the Manasseh Hill Survey books when quoting them. Can you share a link to the original source? Tombah (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Zertal mentions Jizya? I cannot see that he mentions it at all, at least not under that name in vol 3. Please give me the volume and page numbers of where Zertal says this. And how on earch do you, or Zertal, get that the residents paid Jizya tax,......when they were all Muslims! Please read Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, 1977, p.74, (It is not online) -they explains it, Huldra (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He spells it jizia, with an i instead of y. Take a look at Vol. 3, p. 378 for Arrabeh, p. 386 for Jami’ Ṭubrus, p. 390 for Zeita, p. 401 for Seida, p. 409 for Fahma, p. 417 for Attil, p. 420 for Illar and p. 455 for Balah. 21:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

By the way, it doesn't odd to me at all - I won't be surprised if they were still Samaritans before the census but were forced to convert right away, so they were registered as Muslims, but paid jizya before that. In the late Ottoman era, Conder and other explorers had already written on the holiness that certain Muslim fellahin ascribed to Samaritan sanctuaries. It makes complete sense to me, especially in light of the fact that other Muslim families in villages in the same area are still aware of their Samaritan ancestry several centuries after their conversion to Islam. Tombah (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Zertal has got it wrong; take p. 378 Arraba; he writes "300 for jizia (Hütteroth and ‘Abdulfattah 1977: 128). So Zertal's only source for his "jizia" is HA (=Hütteroth and ‘Abdulfattah). And Zertal gets his numbers wrong: nowhere does Zertal mention the number 300 for Arraba. (I have updated the Arraba, Jenin -figures). So lets see what HA p 128 says about Arraba, Jenin:

1)M3 2)Q 3) 'Arraba 4) 5)169/171 6)Pal.100 8)81/31 11)112 13)33,3% 14)17040 15)1500 16)2683 17)2500 27)1000 28)1000 30)12 34)3840 36)29575

The Hütteroth key then explains what 1) 2) 3) etc stands for. As you can see from the article, 5) is Palestine grid. 14), 15) 16), and 17) is for wheat, barley, summer crops and olive trees. It is 34) which is of interest to us here, and the key gives:

34) jizya =poll tax on Christians and Jews

'adat rijaliyya =customary tax on subjects (only for moslems in liwa' Nablus)

Since this is liwa Nablus, and there are 0 non-Muslims ( 9) gives the Christian population, and 10) gives the Jewish population: if anything isn't mention, it means it is equal to 0)., then 34) clearly gives the 'adat rijaliyya tax, and not Jizya. Again, please read Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, 1977, p.74 (Apparetly Zertal never did)

As for what makes "complete sense" to you: that the Ottoman authorities should actually give a tax on Muslims because they once were Jews/Samaritans: that sounds completely absurd to me, and I have never heard of anything like it. (And that would work as a detriment to conversion to Islam: why convert to Islam if you were given your old "extra taxes"?)

In short: go to the source, when in doubt. Pinging User:Zero0000, User:Bolter21, and User:Davidbena (I believe you all have access to HA?) Huldra (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My only guess is that Zertal may have been referring to a different "Arraba," just as we find a Arraba, Israel in Sanjak Safad. There may have been another village by the same name, where there were non-Muslims who were required to pay the jizya (poll-tax). Another option is to explain the sense as meaning ʻadat rijaliyya. By the way, the links that Tombah places for some of the abovementioned towns and villages are plainly misplaced. See for example his links to Seida and Balah. As for the 1977 book published by Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, I last used this book when I borrowed a copy from the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem, when we incorporated their data into the Bayt Nattif article. I may have used it also for the Adullam article. I do not own a personal copy.Davidbena (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra is correct, see Talk:Attil#jizya. Also note that for 'Arraba the amount of the poll tax on Muslims calculated as HA specify is 81x40+31x20=3860, a very near miss to 3840. No room for any jizya here. Zero^talk 03:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why did you remove the tag in your blanket revert? nableezy - 07:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which tag? Tombah (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my guy, please just look at the diff. and please just restore the tag, even if you dont agree with it. its at the start of the revert. nableezy - 07:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was unaware of it. Restored. Tombah (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unaware of it in the sense of not looking through what you're reverting in the slightest? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though there are (of course) no rules against using non-English sources on en.wp, could you at least give the author-names in English? Like at Aboud: It looks as if the author-list of reference 7 is pretty much the same as in reference 6? Indeed, it looks as if the subject is similar, just that the English source is from 2020, while the Hebrew source is from 2017? Huldra (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I will. Regarding Aboud, yes, some of the authors are the same, but the content is a bit different, so in that case we need both sources to fully support the text. Tombah (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and then you do edits like the ones at Salim, Nablus, where you even give editor-link=Shemaryahu Talmon, ...and then gives his name in Hebrew(!). And you still add ref name like <ref name=":0">, <ref name=":1">? Seriously....Huldra (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry! I become so used to the visual editor, which AFAIK does not allow you to change the ref name, so I totally forget to change those sometimes. I'll correct those. Regarding the author and editor names, I reasoned that it would be preferable to keep with the original Hebrew name and include the English names in the article links if I could find an English Wikipedia entry for those. What do you think? Tombah (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing the ref-names.

However, I really do not understand you when you keep the Hebrew name in the article; this is ENGLISH Wikipedia, not HEBREW Wikipedia. Seriously; would you like all Arab authors name in...Arabic? No? Or all Chinese/Japanese authors name in Chinese/Japanese? If you answer "no" to those questions, what makes you think Hebrew names are acceptable? Huldra (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be the English name, makes it much easier for others to try to verify the qualifications of the authors. nableezy - 21:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to clean up these articles? (Ie, get the author-names in English as this is -surprise, surprise - English Wikipedia) Huldra (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Could describing a professor as a "notoriously partisan source" in an edit comment or talk page constitute a WP:BLPVIO?. Thank you. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These edits [1] and [2], obscuring the line between the history of the (most recently) Palestinian town of Isdud (Tel Ashdod) and the neighboring but separate modern Israeli city of Ashdod, is a 1RR violation. Please self revert.

Note previous times we have discussed the same at #/Archive_2#1RR and #/Archive_2#1RR_2. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are continuing your pattern of unfounded charges against me, which joins a long series of baseless accusations such as #1 and #2 almost immediately rejected by admins. Although I'm not an expert in 1RR, what appears to be continuous bias against me, make it difficult for me to believe that this was indeed a violation. As far as I know, the first edit you cite cannot be considered a revert; only the second edit was. I see that Iskandar323 has already ensured that my revert is undone, but for my own information, kindly share the policy that demonstrates that the first edit qualifies as a revert. In that case, I'll know how to deal with those kind of edits next time. However, my greatest wish still stands: that the constant point-scoring and truth-bending that is done in order to delegitimize a nation cease. It's clear from reading how admins responded to the most recent false charges that I'm not hallucinating. Thanks in advance. Tombah (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed a WP:1RR violation, and you should acknowledge that unless you want to make a WP:CIR exhibit of yourself. If you can't acknowledge that, or fail to see the issue here, then Once is frankly well within their rights to take you to task anyway for offering zero acknowledgement of your problem, regardless of whether I may have inadvertently excused you. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The response should go something like: "I missed that. Yes, of course I didn't mean to violate the restrictions." I.e. a far cry from the vaguely self-righteous non-mea culpa above that is currently your only response at this point. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the text that was added after the history move, and what you reverted (twice). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three points to add to the above:

(1) Help:Reverting: "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version." The first edit you made was 100% a revert. Many editors have been blocked for misunderstanding this.

(2) I have given you the opportunity to self-revert 1RR violations multiple times. It would have been easier to have third parties involved by going straight to opening an WP:AE discussion. I can do that next time if you prefer.

(3) Your comment "...that the constant point-scoring and truth-bending that is done in order to delegitimize a nation cease" is a very unhealthy mindset to hold when editing in this project. We are working together, many editors with differing perspectives. We must be able to empathize with each other if we are to have a healthy editing relationship. Your comment implies you do not understand the mentality of those editors with whom you disagree, because it is absolutely not what you seem to think it is. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow the rules if that is the case. Promise to be more careful the next time. But, that doesn't change the fact that you and other editors here occasionally accuse me of things I haven't actually done. (I can only suspect why). Iskandar323 never failing to pitch in and lend a hand, occasionally making false accusations against me, only demonstrates how deep this problem is. I'm all in for empathizing with each other and building a healthy relationship, and I'm ready to start over and forget everything. But you guys will have to improve this record, assume good faith as requested of editors here, also work toward neutrality, and cease the point-scoring (no, we don't need to discuss terminology changes in academic literature, putting the blame on the establishment of Israel already in Caesarea's lede). A sincere apology for recent baseless accusations would also be nice. Tombah (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I admitted my mistake in that instance, but such confusions and instances such as this would either not arise (or arise less) if you toned down the trigger happy reverting a little bit. You are not, just by chance, the one editor repeatedly getting warned about this - it is born out of the habits that you currently have with regards to reverting. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the suggestions of 1RR, by me and others, it's worth noting that by making them here and not at WP:AE, they were made as a voluntary request to revert. Asking at your talk page, rather than running to complain to administrators, is intended to be a mark of respect. A proper "accusation" would be made at WP:AE, not here. So even though Iskandar was wrong in that case, he did it in a way so as to avoid conflict. And he immediately admitted his mistake, which many editors here struggle to do.

My question at the administrators' noticeboard about "notoriously partisan" did not mention you nor link to the edits, because it was just a question for my own learning. Consensus concluded that it was not a BLPVIO, so I learned something.

My sockpuppet investigation, early in your editing career, was wrong. The closer said that it "sounds like off-wiki canvassing", but that may have related to the other editors. I was wrong to have opened the investigation against you, and apologize for doing so.

On the way forward, I think it may be worth discussing what you perceive as "point-scoring", and how those who you disagree with may perceive it very differently. I can only comment on myself, but the phrase "point-scoring" doesn't resonate with me at all - I just don't see it. What you state you perceive as "blaming Israel" is to me a dispassionate attempt to explain why things are as they are. That the geographic term Palestine all but disappeared in 1948 is not something for anyone to be embarrassed about or sensitive to, it is just a fact, and one that benefits from being explained. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and abusing 1RR again at Plan Dalet. Diffs—1 and 2. إيان (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check again, the second revert was a mistake I fixed right after, retaining only the NPOV templates I've just added. You, on the other hand, seem to be here just for WP:RGW. Please be careful. Tombah (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of David
		For expanding the history section of the Jews page. I noticed how incomplete the section was back in 2019, and brought it up on the talk page. No one was able to fix the issue, and though I tried too, it was entirely beyond me. Thank you for addressing this issue at last! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Second Temple period you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Khirbet Kheibar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that based on 19th-century local traditions and name preservation, it has been suggested that the archaeological site of Khirbet Kheibar was once inhabited by Jews expelled from Khaybar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Khirbet Kheibar. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Khirbet Kheibar), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit to Jews you introduced an ((sfn)) reference to "Lipiński 2020 p=94" but did not define the source. This means that nobody can look up the reference, and adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could fix this that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Before posting the above I had made a couple of attempts to find other uses of the reference, to no avail. I had one more go after posting and hey presto! I found it in Kingdom of Judah, so I've added it to Jews. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thank on my edit for Jordan, changing "Palestinian West Bank" to "West Bank" in the lead. I was engaged in a dispute with another editor about this (see talk page). After posting an argument without response for 24 hours, I edited the article to reflect my side. With your thank, we now have established consensus for "West Bank." I highly suggest watching the talk page so you can assert our view on this dispute.

I don't believe this is a violation of canvassing, considering your thank clearly indicated you supported my edit. If it is, please don't hesistate to let me know.

Thanks, RomanHannibal (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @RomanHannibal. We have a serious bias going on right now, as a great deal of articles use WP:VOICE to push their own opinions on a hotly debated topic, placing places throughout the disputed area of the West Bank as being in the State of Palestine, as if as if everyone agreed that the State of Palestine had complete sovereignity over the West Bank. By the way, you can find examples of the same issue in the articles for Egypt and Judea, among many others. Thanks for making an effort to keep things neutral around here, it is much needed. Tombah (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]