Tombah

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

Project much? Your bias was never at all subtle. 2600:8802:5913:1700:54F0:CD6D:B386:D02B (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2024 (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

-- 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

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

-- 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

I’m with you, @Tombah. Just removed pro-Palestine POV from those articles. We need to ensure neutrality on the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if it goes against some of Wikipedia’s systemic bias. RomanHannibal (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Update: I was able to neutralize the Palestinian territories, although I got reverted in 3 places; 2 without reason (Egypt and West Bank) and 1 claiming that the State of Israel existing is POV (it's not. It obviously does). The State of Palestine existing as sovereign is POV considering it is only semi-autonomous and not recognized as a country by the power frequently operating within it, Israel, despite the State of Palestine's objections. If the unexplained reverts continue, we made need to discuss to make Wikipedia more neutral. RomanHannibal (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Tombah, I am now in the middle of a dispute about this topic at Talk:State of Palestine. Any backup would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, RomanHannibal (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have advanced the dispute I initiated about the State of Palestine to WP:DRN. Your contributions would be very much appreciated. RomanHannibal (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beit Jann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beit Dajan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Tombah. Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Would you like some advice? nableezy - 04:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:Nableezy, good advices are always welcome. Tombah (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, first, Tamzin I hope you and everybody else gives us a bit of leeway to discuss things here and only here that would normally fall under the topic ban. And you should probably wait for her to say you can respond before you do. But there are a few issues with a. the actual basis of your complaints, and b. how you are complaining about them. To start off with, since you brought me up, I make no secret of my attempting to colloborate with Nishidani on a series of articles about the occupation of the West Bank and the violations of human rights of the Palestinians. That is a topic I am a. interested in, b. decently well read up on, c. have access to a plethora of sources about. This is a collaborative project. Ive asked people to help me on a number of topics. Jayjg is the author of a ton of featured articles on synagogues, so once upon a time I asked for his help on copyediting Al-Azhar Mosque. Robert Prazeus later noticed something I had gotten wrong on that page and later I offered to email him a specialist source I had been able to get a copy of through a university exchange. Thats what we do here, we collaborate. As long as it is above board and based on the interest of improving the encyclopedia there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong are things like surreptitious notices to vote a certain way, or asking somebody to revert an edit for me because Im out of reverts, or informing people of discussions just because you know their politics. All of those things are attempting to disrupt the collaborative nature of the project, they are seeking to game the result. Do you really think the subject of deportations of Palestinians from the West Bank is not a "notable topic"? Do you think it has not received significant, sustained coverage in not just reliable sources, but if I were to restrict this only to peer-reviewed works or books published by academic publishers? Then why shouldnt we have an article on it? And why would my wanting to work with somebody on such an article be a problem?

As far as your "activist" claims, your jumping off point is that Zionism is legitimate and that Wikipedia apparently must uphold that. Whether or not something reflects positively or negatively on Zionism, on democracy, on capitalism, on communism, on whatever topic is not something that factors into whether or not we should include it. It simply does not matter if you are an avowed Zionist or an avowed anti-Zionist, what matters here is if your edits reflect the best sources and fairly and proportionately give those sources their due weight. If somebody is consistently using poor sources to argue a point that better sources dispute, then yes you have a complaint. But being upset that somebody documents some topic that reflects poorly on some ideology is not something that is going to be take seriously.

Next, you wrote to Tamzin the evidence I offered reveals that Wikipedia now has a serious balance issue. No, sorry, you did not offer any evidence. What you offered was innuendo and claims about a recent surge in Anti-Israeli articles. You did this Trumpian "now Im not calling anybody an activist here but somebody has gotta look in to the activism here". Do you think Land expropriation in the West Bank is not a notable topic? You think it is "anti-Israeli" to document human rights abuses against the Palestinians? You dont think it is "anti-Palestinian" to suppress such a topic? You think the legality of the occupation is not a topic that is the subject of scholarly work? Really? Is just documenting anything that Israel does in the occupation "anti-Israeli"? Does that mean Wikipedia should be pro-occupation? Do you think Wikipedia should be Zionist?

Once upon a time here there was a Palestinian editor here who went by Tiamut. There was an Israeli editor here who, and Im trying to be charitable here, used a significant amount of energy to mess with her. And in their final attempt to sanction Tiamut at AE, she responded with something I think you should reflect on. There is no doubt that Jaakobou is offended because his preferred ideology is being depicted in terms that are alien to soul. Too bad ... Zionism is alien to my soul, but I deal with it all the time in life and at Wikipedia. All of us have our own personal views. All of us are confronted with opposing ones. We're still supposed to collaborate and work towards those opposing views being given their due weight as determined by reliable sources. Ive said over and over I think youre smart and can be a fantastic editor. But you have to accept that your personal views are just that, personal, and that on a place as big as the internet youre own views are not going to just be accepted as the final word.

Finally, I once tried to demonstrate an editor was consistently POV-pushing, and to be honest I thought I did a bang up job of it. I tried to show how they would make opposing arguments based purely on POV, and that still did not get much traction. If you cannot prove your case you should not be making the accusation. You cant say I think whoever is a whatever and I think somebody should look in to it. No, you have to look into it yourself, and you have to prove the case so well that somebody can look at 500-1000 words and reach the same conclusion as you. nableezy - 13:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm always glad to see an experienced editor in a field offer advice to someone recently sanctioned, and I know, Nableezy, that your counsel was instrumental in Davidbena getting his full TBAN lifted. So I have no problem with, in this context, Tombah discussing the events that led to this sanction, to the extent necessary to explain his state of mind, so long as WP:CIV is still followed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would say that editing Template:History of Israel is skirting the limits of your topic ban - I would stay away from any project elements that potentially entail modern political perspectives on history. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tamzin: Some clarity on this would be welcome, since I'm being ignored. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Iskandar323: The topic ban is from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. No part of this obviously pertains to the conflict, at least at a glance. If there's a specific part of the edit that concerns you, please elaborate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tamzin: No worries ... as I said, skirting ... but if you're not worried, I'm not worried. Not trying to make a thing. Just trying to make sure that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Editing Origin of the Palestinians is a breach of tban Diff, please do not edit pages carrying the AI talk page template/AI edit notices. Thank you for your attention.Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

How does material relating to Palestinian folklore violate an ARBPIA ban? In no way does it relate to the conflict. Tombah (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The origin of the Palestinians falls under the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, because it is a point of contention in ethnicity-based claims to the region. The politics of Israelis' and Palestinians' origins is what led to the initial AE thread here, after all. Prety much anything about the Palestinians, as a people, will fall under the TBAN, because basically everything about their existence is politicized as part of the conflict. (The same is partly true of Israelis as a people, but to a lesser extent. E.g. it would be possible—although not necessarily advisable—to edit about Israeli cinema without breaking the TBAN, while I don't think the same is true of Palestinian cinema, at least not for edits of any length.)

Topic bans are a hard thing to wrap one's head around, especially for topics like the Arab-Israeli conflict which cover the intersection of two topics, but not the union. Usually a first violation is a warning, and lots of people reach that point. So this is your logged warning: "the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed" extends to all content that is relevant to the conflict, even if explicitly only about one party to it. If it feels like that adds up to "Don't edit about Israel(is) or Palestin(e|ians) at all", well sadly that is often how people have to treat an ARBPIA TBAN, if they don't want to slip past a boundary. Which sucks, but Wikipedia admins can't do anything about the fact that so much of Israeli and Palestinian culture is politicized. My general advice to anyone with a TBAN is to treat any exceptions as "safety valves, not loopholes"—and I would say it's best to take the same view of Israel-but-not-explicitly-Palestine things and especially Palestine-but-not-explicitly-Israel things. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would ask once again that you not edit articles that carry the Arbpia/Ct talk page and edit notices as was done here. You may of course request edits at the talk page of these articles. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tombah: Your participation here in a discussion on a page both with a CT tag and also literally discussing a move to include mention of Israel-Palestine is a blatant violation of your TBAN. It really shouldn't need explaining how that falls quite firmly within the CT covered by your TBAN. Please remove your post. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tamzin: Please see the above. I was waiting for Tombah's next edit after the referenced RM comment (they were away for five days) to be a retraction. Unfortunately it was not. Not ideal. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@User:Iskandar323, This entire conversation is beginning to seem a little odd. Since I don't edit any articles that are related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don't see how my edits violate my tban, unless you classify everything having to do with Jewish history in the Land of Israel as IP. Tombah (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It should be obvious that editing a page with the specific tag associated with your TBAN, in a discussion containing the magic words "Israel-Palestine", and with your comment itself containing the same magic words, when the page contains a whole section on the modern conflict that is of course also subject to the page title and RM, and where the discussion is over religious versus secular terminology for the modern geography associated with the conflict, that this would very much be 'broadly construed' as related to the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

My expertise lies in the field of Jewish history, which is where I primarily contribute. My intention was to convey that the "Land of Israel" holds significant legitimacy when discussing Jewish history. Again, your assertion that the term "Land of Israel" is exclusively a religious term is inaccurate. This term is commonly used by Jews, observant and non-observant, as a primary descriptor. It also holds a huge presence within academic literature in articles related to the subject matter. I'm getting the impression that your meticulous adherence to my edits, in order to to make sure that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed, might inadvertently be impacting the sense of trust and our collaborative efforts. If your intention is to suggest that I reconsider my involvement, there are alternative ways to communicate that sentiment. Tombah (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tombah, you might consider checking with an admin before working on certain pages or topics, particularly those edits you have just made today. Tamzin’s comment above suggests a need for caution. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion would be that you reconsider editing articles that can be very readily broadly construed to be covered by your TBAN – especially while you get a better handle on WP:NPOV and the need to not simply reflect terminology that is, as you say, commonly used by certain groups coming from certain points of view, i.e. not rooted in the requisite policy-based neutrality. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Iskandar323. I'm not doing much high-level admin work at the moment. If you believe this is a TBAN violation, I'd suggest filing at AE. Speaking generally, and without taking a position on the matter at hand, I'll repeat what I said to Tombah on my usertalk: Definitely not all of Jewish history or Israeli/Palestinian history fall under an ARBPIA topic ban. For instance, to pick some random examples, I don't think Solomon's Temple, Siege of Masada, or Siege of Jerusalem (1099) would, at least not in most cases. Same goes for contemporary Israeli figures with no connection to politics or the military. The problem that arises, though, is that, on any article with even the slightest connection to a topic, it's possible to say something that would still essentially be a "proxy war" for that topic. ... [T]he same issues that lead people to get topic-banned also, frankly, lead them to be bad judges of what would be a violation of the topic ban at the margins, which is why admins often say to act like you're topic-banned from a much larger area than you are, which I have my own version of with the "safety valves, not loopholes" line. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Creating user:Hyrcanus and using it to violate your Arab Israel topic ban was a really poor decision. Therefore, both that account and this one are blocked for sockpuppetry. Note that I’ve marked this as a checkuserblock, not an arbitration enforcement one, but the differences are largely immaterial. Courcelles (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply