User talk:Makeandtoss/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Jordan wording
Makeandtoss, can you explain why you reverted my rewording of "The Nabataeans were nomadic Arabs who benefited from the proximity of their capital Petra to the trade routes, in gathering wealth by becoming a major trading hub"? The current wording feels very strange grammatically. Best, CMD (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: It said "The Nabataeans were nomadic Arabs who benefited from the proximity of their capital Petra in gathering wealth by becoming a major trading hub", proximity to what.. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. Here's a question, if they were nomadic, how did they they have a capital city? CMD (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: :Initially nomadic and Petra didn't really contain any houses, probably lived in tents. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- How is "The Nabataeans were nomadic Arabs who derived wealth from their capital Petra, whose proximity to major trade routes led to it becoming a regional hub." ? CMD (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: Yeah sounds better. --Makeandtoss (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Done! The article's only 60kB now by the way, so that is no longer going to be a GA issue. CMD (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: Lol oops, had to edit something and it became 61kB. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Done! The article's only 60kB now by the way, so that is no longer going to be a GA issue. CMD (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: Yeah sounds better. --Makeandtoss (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- How is "The Nabataeans were nomadic Arabs who derived wealth from their capital Petra, whose proximity to major trade routes led to it becoming a regional hub." ? CMD (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: :Initially nomadic and Petra didn't really contain any houses, probably lived in tents. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. Here's a question, if they were nomadic, how did they they have a capital city? CMD (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Allah - Christianity?
Allah refers to Islamic views of "God," but as this view is different from Christian views of God and his son Jesus being also God rather than a profit. The term "Allah" has been wrongly defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.206.243 (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- @66.190.206.243: Allah is simply an Arabic word. You are referring to God in Islam which is a separate article. --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to editathon
Hey Makeandtoss. I'd like to invite you Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests, a drive by various editors here to improve coverage for Africa-related articles. I've been told this drive will be expanded to include the Levant, including Jordan, so naturally I thought of you. The segment for North Africa and the Middle East will begin in October. With your help and others maybe we could strengthen this weak area in Wikipedia. If you're interested, sign your name at the "Participants" section. Regards, --Al Ameer (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi
I´m trying to clean up on some villages in Lebanon; I noticed on Habboûch, that's Arab version article seem to have a picture of the place (although completely not formatted): I wondered if you could please copy that picture over to commons, if it is permitted? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Huldra: Hmm there is usually a "transfer to commons" button, but its not there. The pic was uploaded to Arabic wikipedia, where I was blocked by some fanatic so I can't contact the uploader. Not sure if there's anything I could do :( . --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Your Edit on Petra
Asalam aleikum, my good neighbor, User:Makeandtoss. I wanted to ask you what you felt was an infringement on WP:OR in my recent edit on the Petra article? Perhaps in the future, if there are any disagreements, we can discuss the issue on the Talk-Page. Meanwhile, the recent edit is very good and adds a dimension of historical facts and knowledge hitherto not mentioned in this important article. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: You are quoting primary sources and adding your own interpretations to the additions, like "as early as 1340 BC". Thats original research. --Makeandtoss (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss:, primary sources can still be cited on WP, and besides, Josephus, who lived after the event, is describing an event which happened during the time of Moses. If the phrase "as early as 1340 BC" seems to you as original research, we can get an opinion about this from an administrator, or perhaps simply put down "late bronze age" when these events happened according to Josephus. If I say that the Second Temple was destroyed in 68 or 70 CE, is that called original research? Of course not.Davidbena (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: He says the region was inhabited by the Madanites, he didn't say if Petra was included at that very year. No, not really. Primary sources should be dealt with caution, there are endless possibilities regarding the content in the source. The whole account could be factually incorrect, its the scholars and historians job to determine the authenticity of content, we can't just place them in the article open to interpretations. For example like how the 4 gospels of the New Testament vary. We can't just pick up Matthew's account and say its the whole story. Even if we pick up the 4 gospels, we still need interpretation by scholars who depend on archaeological, chronological and geographical evidence. Not exclusively on some thousands year old book. --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss:, First, you stand to be corrected. Josephus is a secondary source, when it comes to repeating history that happened more than 1,000 years before him. As for the historicity of Josephus' accounts, it is well-known that Josephus is used all throughout Wikipedia articles, as he has shown himself to be a historian who quoted from the earlier historians of his day. When you say that Josephus' account "could be factually incorrect," you are interjecting here personal bias. Unless you can prove that his account of Petra being named Rekeme, after a king of Madian by that same name, is an error, the edit should be viewed as within the bounds and scope of Wikipedia's policy. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Bias? I have never used a primary source on Wikipedia. Josephus lived 2,000 years ago, what makes you think his book remained intact? "The first published source for any given fact is often considered a primary source." - WP:USEPRIMARY. --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- My friend, Josephus is not, in this case, a primary source, but rather a secondary source, and Josephus is considered a reliable source when he recounts events of the past. Historians frequently refer to Josephus' Book of Antiquities. You started this by suggesting that Josephus, here, is a primary source, which he is not, and although if he were, we are still permitted to use occasionally primary sources, just as explained in WP policies. As a reminder: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.... Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." (Cited from WP:Primary sources).Davidbena (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: How exactly is he not a primary source? The first published source for any given fact is often considered a primary source. --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- The ancient Egyptians wrote accounts on how their dead rose up to heaven, can we really take these accounts as is? --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- My friend, I have already explained to you, using Wikipedia's own word, why - in our case, Josephus is not a primary source for the information that he brings down relating to Petra. Again, Wikipedia policy states explicitly: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." If Harvard University Press saw fit to print the Loeb Classical Library series, you can rest assured that Josephus' histories are not just some ancient Egyptian history of spurious worth. Would you like me to provide you with a list of academicians who quote from Josephus? Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Of course they quote from Josephus, he is a historical source. But do they quote blindly? They never do, and we shouldn't either. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- He can be reliable, but not every single piece of information. They should be reviewed and discussed by scholars first. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- In this case, there is no reason to expunge this useful information written in Josephus from our readers. One scholar says this; another scholar wrote this; you may also wish to see the reference of Josephus to Petra in this article, here, p. 62.Davidbena (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: So where is the source that mentions "as early as 1340 BC"?
- "the Petra of the Greeks" The Greeks didn't even come close to Petra.
- " Of these there were five: Ochus and Sures, Robees and Ures, and, the fifth" Why is this even quoted?
- And why are we using block quotes? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently, you misunderstood the import of the text. By saying, "the Petra of the Greeks," it means the language the Greeks used to denote Rekem; they called it Petra. As for dating, this is all simple calculations, based on the period of Moses and the people of Israel's entry into the land of Canaan, held by many to be the date mentioned by me. It is always better to use a relative date than merely using "late bronze age." The block-quote is very impressive, in my view. And it hits the subject on the nail, so-to-speak. We're talking in this history about the origin of its name.Davidbena (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Now that we got non-primary sources, the quote can stay. But this part is unnecessary "Of these there were five: Ochus and Sures, Robees and Ures, and, the fifth". "the Petra of the Greeks" should be "called Petra by the Greeks". And I still feel that the block quote is unnecessary as the quote isn't really that interesting. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss:, one thing I learned long ago is that whenever you quote from a source, you are not permitted to change its wording. It is, however, permitted to shorten a quote. But since the quote speaks about the early inhabitants of the country (Madianites), it also proceeds to name five of its early kings, one of whom Petra (Rekemu) happens to be named from. Everything, in my humble opinion, is relevant. Can you think of a better way of introducing the subject, by mentioning one of the Madianite kings?Davidbena (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Now that we got non-primary sources, the quote can stay. But this part is unnecessary "Of these there were five: Ochus and Sures, Robees and Ures, and, the fifth". "the Petra of the Greeks" should be "called Petra by the Greeks". And I still feel that the block quote is unnecessary as the quote isn't really that interesting. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently, you misunderstood the import of the text. By saying, "the Petra of the Greeks," it means the language the Greeks used to denote Rekem; they called it Petra. As for dating, this is all simple calculations, based on the period of Moses and the people of Israel's entry into the land of Canaan, held by many to be the date mentioned by me. It is always better to use a relative date than merely using "late bronze age." The block-quote is very impressive, in my view. And it hits the subject on the nail, so-to-speak. We're talking in this history about the origin of its name.Davidbena (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- In this case, there is no reason to expunge this useful information written in Josephus from our readers. One scholar says this; another scholar wrote this; you may also wish to see the reference of Josephus to Petra in this article, here, p. 62.Davidbena (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- He can be reliable, but not every single piece of information. They should be reviewed and discussed by scholars first. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Of course they quote from Josephus, he is a historical source. But do they quote blindly? They never do, and we shouldn't either. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- My friend, I have already explained to you, using Wikipedia's own word, why - in our case, Josephus is not a primary source for the information that he brings down relating to Petra. Again, Wikipedia policy states explicitly: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." If Harvard University Press saw fit to print the Loeb Classical Library series, you can rest assured that Josephus' histories are not just some ancient Egyptian history of spurious worth. Would you like me to provide you with a list of academicians who quote from Josephus? Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- My friend, Josephus is not, in this case, a primary source, but rather a secondary source, and Josephus is considered a reliable source when he recounts events of the past. Historians frequently refer to Josephus' Book of Antiquities. You started this by suggesting that Josephus, here, is a primary source, which he is not, and although if he were, we are still permitted to use occasionally primary sources, just as explained in WP policies. As a reminder: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.... Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." (Cited from WP:Primary sources).Davidbena (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Bias? I have never used a primary source on Wikipedia. Josephus lived 2,000 years ago, what makes you think his book remained intact? "The first published source for any given fact is often considered a primary source." - WP:USEPRIMARY. --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss:, First, you stand to be corrected. Josephus is a secondary source, when it comes to repeating history that happened more than 1,000 years before him. As for the historicity of Josephus' accounts, it is well-known that Josephus is used all throughout Wikipedia articles, as he has shown himself to be a historian who quoted from the earlier historians of his day. When you say that Josephus' account "could be factually incorrect," you are interjecting here personal bias. Unless you can prove that his account of Petra being named Rekeme, after a king of Madian by that same name, is an error, the edit should be viewed as within the bounds and scope of Wikipedia's policy. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: He says the region was inhabited by the Madanites, he didn't say if Petra was included at that very year. No, not really. Primary sources should be dealt with caution, there are endless possibilities regarding the content in the source. The whole account could be factually incorrect, its the scholars and historians job to determine the authenticity of content, we can't just place them in the article open to interpretations. For example like how the 4 gospels of the New Testament vary. We can't just pick up Matthew's account and say its the whole story. Even if we pick up the 4 gospels, we still need interpretation by scholars who depend on archaeological, chronological and geographical evidence. Not exclusively on some thousands year old book. --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss:, primary sources can still be cited on WP, and besides, Josephus, who lived after the event, is describing an event which happened during the time of Moses. If the phrase "as early as 1340 BC" seems to you as original research, we can get an opinion about this from an administrator, or perhaps simply put down "late bronze age" when these events happened according to Josephus. If I say that the Second Temple was destroyed in 68 or 70 CE, is that called original research? Of course not.Davidbena (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- It can simply be out of the quote; Names one of the Madianite kings; Rekem, "..." --Makeandtoss (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Ahmad aboghosh
Please review this talk! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthistorian1977#Ahmad_Abughaush_Page Thanks38.130.106.182 (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Google Street View in Jordan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Google Street View in Jordan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Street View in Jordan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
2010 election results
Makeandtoss, I am unable to find a source for the party make-up of the 2010 Jordanian parliamentary election results. I've found a great source listing all the candidates individually, with votes and everything, but it doesn't record party affiliations. Oddly enough I've found sources for the elections on either side of 2010. I'm trying to fill out a template currently at User:Chipmunkdavis/Sandbox. Do you know of any sources on the matter? Best, CMD (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: Interestingly, didn't find anything in Arabic either! Perhaps this info was not published.. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jordan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Emir of Wikipedia -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Jordan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jordan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Emir of Wikipedia -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The article Jordan you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Jordan for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Emir of Wikipedia -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Emir of Wikipedia: A mistake I assume? --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. I don't know what happened there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
August 2016
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Arab Christians has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arab Christians. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Makeandtoss for an AE action I opened. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Result of the AE complaint
Please see this closure of the AE complaint about you. You are advised that marking places as being in the State of Palestine may expose you to ARBPIA sanctions unless you get consensus. Warring about the scope of designations such as Israel, the West Bank, or Palestine is not recommended for anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |