![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | Zahir al-Umar received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Zahir al-Umar has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 12, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Zahir al-Umar appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 December 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
It would be nice to have some source references; I'll probably eventually look him up in the big Encyclopaedia of Islam, but I'm not sure when... AnonMoos 02:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I belive describing him as Bedouin is not accurate, he/his family owned land and were well settled, the description bedouin is for nomadic population and related social behavior, which arab villagers and population of the cities clearly do not have, i think the writer wanted to say tribal or something like that, which is something else ... "arab tribes is not equal to bedouins, but arab bedouins are generally tribal population".-- 213.6.12.230 ( talk) 23:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
So what? the East India company had "influential connections" with the Moghuls. 92.235.178.44 ( talk) 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is his name 'Dhaher'. All his family know him as DAHER. We are the DAHER family, and he is known by everyone as DAHER El Omar. He is not 'DHAHER', someone should change this... ( Bubbles*de*milo ( talk) 00:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC))
Interwiki to Arabic Wikipedia was changed from ظاهر to ضاهر but I think we should stay with the Encyclopaedia of Islam, unless there's specific countervailing evidence... AnonMoos ( talk) 04:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I kind of suspected that might happpen... AnonMoos ( talk) 02:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Some editors have uploaded pictures to commons of the old graveyard in Al-Manshiyya, Acre, (see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Al-Manshiyya,_Acre), writing that Daher el-Omar is buried there. Now, none of the sources I have on Al-Manshiyya (Khalidi, Petersen) mentions this. Does anyone know? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 14:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the dead of Zahir is a bit confuse and contains some mistakes; in my advice al-Dhahab of Egipt conquered Acre in 1775 (operation against Palestine started in march 1775), but as he deceased in june 1775 the egiptians don't retain the city that was recobered by Zahir. But a ottoman naval force take Acre in august 1775; then Zahir was killed while fled or while the city was sacked. see [1]. The mistake surely derives from Enciclopaedya of Islam that erroneousely states that Acre was conquered august 1774 instead 1775. Zahir was 80 years old.-- 95.17.88.104 ( talk) 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reference for this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylad2000 ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this contradicting with what is written in the beginning of the article " Accounts from that time tell of the great admiration which the people had for Daher, especially for his war against bandits on the roads. Richard Pococke" Mylad2000 ( talk) 18:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of pictures of structures connected to el-Omar and his sons on he.wiki if anyone's interested in moving them over. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If you refer the Encyclopaedia of Islam, then you also have to follow what the EoI really says: ... local ruler in northern Palestine..., otherwise it would be a manipulation of sources. -- Roksanna ( talk) 19:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Here we have two different problems.
Furthermore, Galilee is territorial not better than Northern Palestine, see and compare which problems the article Galilee has to define its limits (borders which did not exist in the middle of the 18th century anymore). Dahers chiefdome stretched from Safed and the Tiberias lake to Jaffa and Akko at the Mediterranean coast, so it was more than just Galilee. However, this is quite exactly the northern half of the former mandate of Palestine and today's Israel, so everybody can have a quite clear imagination which territory is meant. Hence, even the term "Northern half of today's Israel" would be a better term than "Galilee" (During the mid-18th century Daher el-Omar... was the autonomous Arab ruler of what is the Northern half of Israel today.) -- Roksanna ( talk) 05:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Again and simplified: The referred source (EoI) clearly says "Palestine". Everything else is your private OR. And again I repeat my question: Are you a better historian than the EoI authors are? -- Roksanna ( talk) 18:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not interested to convince you about anything. I even understand that from your private background you have to prefere the ideological term "Galilee". However, I am just interested to remind you about the general Wikipedia rules, for example about correct citation and to prevent private OR. -- Roksanna ( talk) 10:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia of Islam is ideological? And "Galilee" is neutral? Funny. However, there are still rules here in Wikipedia for the correct handling with sources and against private OR. By the way, "ruler of Galilee" and "ruler in Galilee" is the same difference like "ruler of Afghanistan" or "warlord in Afghanistan", do you know which difference I mean? -- Roksanna ( talk) 21:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The Arabs do not need the "of" because as well as many other nations in the world they know how to use the Genitiv. However, they have "fii" for "in", and this is a difference. Anyway, this is not the problem: The problem is the manipulatiuon of the source. And, by the way, I cannot really believe that you think Galilee would be not anachronostic. And, last but not least, Daher ruled over much more than just Galilee, it was you who mentioned his full title. -- Roksanna ( talk) 20:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Galilee is anachronistic because the title was unique made for Daher, not describing any real terrorial administrative unit of the Ottoman time. Galilee today is only used to replace the use of Palestine. Again: Daher ruled over more than just Galilee, and furthermore he did not just rule anywhere in Galilee. Again: The referred source is the EoI which writes "Northern Palestine" and in the international use Palestine is much more understandable than Galilee. Again: Are you a better historian than the EoI authors? If yes, which publications from you should I know? (Attention: rhetorial question, no need to answer) -- Roksanna ( talk) 18:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, maybe "Palestine" also was not any special territorial or administrative unit in the Ottoman time. However, it was a geographical term during all the times until today. Today, the EoI was written in our times for readers in our times, it is an easy understandable and popular term, while Galilee is only used by some special political reasons to prevent the use of the term Palestine. Finally, correct citation is and stays the main argument: the EoI clearly writes Palestine in his introduction text, to change it would be at least OR or even a source manipulation. -- Roksanna ( talk) 08:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This edit war cannot continue. As of now both of you can be reported to ARBPIA. This debate seems to be going around in circles. I have no problem with either northern Palestine or Galilee, but in a case like this, we have to rely on prevalence, not just one source (the EoI). What do most sources say? Galilee or Northern Palestine? So far, looking at the Philip and Doumani sources, as well as other scholarly sources not used in this article (Peter Malcolm Holt, Eugene Rogan, Kamil Mansur and Phillip Mattar to name a few) Daher is referred to as the "ruler" or "strongman" of the "Galilee". In fact the name was in his official title. Therefore, Galilee seems to be the appropriate term to use here. I would not take the narrow and unfounded view that using "Galilee" is nothing more than a means to avoid "Palestine". If and when there is a need to use the traditional geographical term of Palestine, then obviously it can and should be used. Unless it could be proven that northern Palestine is indeed the common term to refer to Daher's sheikhdom, Galilee should not be replaced. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 04:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
-- Roksanna ( talk) 09:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Possible compromises
Not at all. Galilee is far away from being a general accepted neutral term. And also it is not a well-known term. The popular term is Northern Palestine and this ies exactly what the scientists of the EoI use. -- Roksanna ( talk) 19:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
It is not a question of doing good or bad. Scientific works have to follow rules about citation as well as such an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia does. I have not made these rules but they are logical and they are generally valid. I made proposals to replace the wrong term Galilee as well as the unwanted term Palestine. If there is no compromise I have to continue to insist on the correct citation. -- Roksanna ( talk) 12:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
-- Roksanna ( talk) 11:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
No good answer? -- Roksanna ( talk) 16:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Whatever! Which word ever you prefer, it is not an answer to these two questions. -- Roksanna ( talk) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
No need to repeat anything, just answer these two simple questions! Nothing else, only these two questions! -- Roksanna ( talk) 15:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
-- Roksanna ( talk) 15:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
There are several references which are not given in the Biblio-part. And "year" is mostly missing, so it is not easy to guess which books/articles one refers to. Examples:
*Barnay, p. 15, Barnay, p. 148, Barnay, p. 156.
Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 21:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don´t understand these refs:
PEF, 1881, p. 285 is about the Siloam text (in Jerusalem). And the 1881 edition of the Quarterly statement only goes to page 328, so what does p. 338, or pp. 376-377 refer to? Huldra ( talk) 21:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
On a separate note, do you know of any sources that say az-Zeeb, Arbel and I'billin had fortifications dating to the Daher el-Omar period? -- Al Ameer ( talk) 22:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I have checked all the Sharon-books, and here is where "Zahir al-Umar" is mentioned:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |isbn13=
ignored (
help)
I know this was discussed some time ago, but as I've worked on the article lately, I've noticed that none of the ~35 scholarly sources that support this article use the name "Daher el-Omar". Most often, his surname is spelled "Dahir", followed by "Zahir" and "Dhaher". The article "el-" is rarely used. Most sources use "al-". The surname "Omar" is used a lot, but not as much as "Umar". I think it's best to move the article to "Dahir al-Umar", which is the name used most often by the scholarly sources and The Encyclopedia Brittanica [3]. Any objections? -- Al Ameer ( talk) 22:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: FunkMonk ( talk · contribs) 12:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: Thanks for the thorough review FunkMonk. It's always nice when a reviewer's concerns or suggestions could significantly improve an article. I believe I have addressed your points to the best of my abilities. Some things like the names of Zahir's female family members, or more details about certain incidents like Yaqub Agha's execution and teenage Zahir's deadly brawl, are a bit of a problem because of limitations with the sources. Not sure if or where info on these matters exists. Let me know if there is anything else that should be addressed. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 20:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Querying the very odd use of these terms in lede. "northern Palestine" is a difficult term since the question of where "Palestine" is or was is problematic. Galilee is a more specific term. Querying the relationship with Egypt. Muhammad Ali of Egypt formally recognized Ottoman sovereignty. Ali Pasha was a pasha. What was Zahir al-Umar formal status vis a vis the Empire? Querying use of the term "autonomous", also "domain" and "reign" Extremelyodd terms, and not terms used on Wikipedia to describe Ali Pasha, who was, after all, a far bigger deal in the world and ceertainly did not take orders from the Divine Porte. In sum - the lede is problematic. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 02:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Al Ameer son: the quote comes from here. Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I recently stumbled across the Thomas Philipp book "Acre: The Rise and Fall of a Palestinian City, 1730-1831", and was going to suggest it as a source, but I see that's already been done. However, the map on p. 228 shows that Zahir al-Umar's rule over Nablus, Jerusalem, Gaza, and Ramla was rather brief and transitory (during the war that led to his overthrow), so I'm not sure why it's given such prominence in the infobox at the top of the article... AnonMoos ( talk) 14:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The name "Bani Saqr," a Bedouin tribe, is mentioned a dozen times on the page in its present form. Does this refer to the Bani (or Beni) Sakhr (بنو صخر) tribe "of Jordan" as that page describes them? If so, the identity needs to be indicated with wikilinks and consistent spelling. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 19:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
He did not "rule Palestine" in any meaningful sense, since when his realm was stable, it was mostly confined to the Galilee and coastal region to the west. His soldiers only moved into other areas as part of the war which led to his overthrow. He was certainly by far the most prominent local ruler in Palestine (as opposed to Ottoman governors and such), but he did not rule over Palestine. AnonMoos ( talk) 12:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Pretending like Palestine was the name of the levant before the British resurrected the king dead word is silly. The ottomans referred to the area as a district of Damascus. Calling it "Palestine" won't make it true. 2600:387:F:D17:0:0:0:5 ( talk) 06:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Arminden: Interesting observation: "The blue cultural heritage plaque shown on Google Maps indicates Zahir's son, "Chulaybee", as the builder and the year as 1745, so half a decade after the city walls. What does Petersen say (Google Books doesn't show it)?"
'Chulaybee' is a wild English transliteration of Salibi (also spelled Celebi or Sulaybi), Zahir's eldest son and his multazim or governor of Tiberias. According to Petersen, Salibi was appointed to the post sometime after the failed siege of Tiberias by Sulayman Pasha al-Azm in 1742. Petersen does not credit Salibi for any construction. In the 'Fortifications' section of the Tiberias chapter, Petersen says Zahir built his Tiberias wall "in the 1730s and 1740s", without mentioning any work by Salibi. Still, it is very plausible that Salibi, in charge of Tiberias between c. 1742 and presumably his death in 1773, undertook his own building works in the city, including the citadel, as Zahir's other sons carried out such work in the towns they controlled. I suspect the plaque is correct, but it is not an RS, so will look for something more solid shortly. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 16:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Sulaybi is likely based on the Arabic diminutive form... AnonMoos ( talk) 17:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Any thoughts on whether or not to continue to present these two images, File:Daher el-Omar portrait 1.jpg and File:Daher el-Omar 001.JPG, in the article? They are both modern, artistic representations of the subject, but most probably have no relation to Zahir al-Umar's actual appearance or dress. (There are no known portraits or sketches of Zahir al-Umar, at least as far I know, and I have yet to see a written description of his appearance from a credible source.) My opinion about this has evolved recently. I propose that we drop the first image, at least from the infobox, while keeping either this same image or the second one elsewhere in the article, perhaps in the Legacy section. Will wait for further input before proceeding. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 18:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | Zahir al-Umar received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Zahir al-Umar has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 12, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Zahir al-Umar appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 December 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
It would be nice to have some source references; I'll probably eventually look him up in the big Encyclopaedia of Islam, but I'm not sure when... AnonMoos 02:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I belive describing him as Bedouin is not accurate, he/his family owned land and were well settled, the description bedouin is for nomadic population and related social behavior, which arab villagers and population of the cities clearly do not have, i think the writer wanted to say tribal or something like that, which is something else ... "arab tribes is not equal to bedouins, but arab bedouins are generally tribal population".-- 213.6.12.230 ( talk) 23:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
So what? the East India company had "influential connections" with the Moghuls. 92.235.178.44 ( talk) 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is his name 'Dhaher'. All his family know him as DAHER. We are the DAHER family, and he is known by everyone as DAHER El Omar. He is not 'DHAHER', someone should change this... ( Bubbles*de*milo ( talk) 00:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC))
Interwiki to Arabic Wikipedia was changed from ظاهر to ضاهر but I think we should stay with the Encyclopaedia of Islam, unless there's specific countervailing evidence... AnonMoos ( talk) 04:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I kind of suspected that might happpen... AnonMoos ( talk) 02:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Some editors have uploaded pictures to commons of the old graveyard in Al-Manshiyya, Acre, (see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Al-Manshiyya,_Acre), writing that Daher el-Omar is buried there. Now, none of the sources I have on Al-Manshiyya (Khalidi, Petersen) mentions this. Does anyone know? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 14:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the dead of Zahir is a bit confuse and contains some mistakes; in my advice al-Dhahab of Egipt conquered Acre in 1775 (operation against Palestine started in march 1775), but as he deceased in june 1775 the egiptians don't retain the city that was recobered by Zahir. But a ottoman naval force take Acre in august 1775; then Zahir was killed while fled or while the city was sacked. see [1]. The mistake surely derives from Enciclopaedya of Islam that erroneousely states that Acre was conquered august 1774 instead 1775. Zahir was 80 years old.-- 95.17.88.104 ( talk) 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reference for this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylad2000 ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this contradicting with what is written in the beginning of the article " Accounts from that time tell of the great admiration which the people had for Daher, especially for his war against bandits on the roads. Richard Pococke" Mylad2000 ( talk) 18:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of pictures of structures connected to el-Omar and his sons on he.wiki if anyone's interested in moving them over. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If you refer the Encyclopaedia of Islam, then you also have to follow what the EoI really says: ... local ruler in northern Palestine..., otherwise it would be a manipulation of sources. -- Roksanna ( talk) 19:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Here we have two different problems.
Furthermore, Galilee is territorial not better than Northern Palestine, see and compare which problems the article Galilee has to define its limits (borders which did not exist in the middle of the 18th century anymore). Dahers chiefdome stretched from Safed and the Tiberias lake to Jaffa and Akko at the Mediterranean coast, so it was more than just Galilee. However, this is quite exactly the northern half of the former mandate of Palestine and today's Israel, so everybody can have a quite clear imagination which territory is meant. Hence, even the term "Northern half of today's Israel" would be a better term than "Galilee" (During the mid-18th century Daher el-Omar... was the autonomous Arab ruler of what is the Northern half of Israel today.) -- Roksanna ( talk) 05:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Again and simplified: The referred source (EoI) clearly says "Palestine". Everything else is your private OR. And again I repeat my question: Are you a better historian than the EoI authors are? -- Roksanna ( talk) 18:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not interested to convince you about anything. I even understand that from your private background you have to prefere the ideological term "Galilee". However, I am just interested to remind you about the general Wikipedia rules, for example about correct citation and to prevent private OR. -- Roksanna ( talk) 10:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia of Islam is ideological? And "Galilee" is neutral? Funny. However, there are still rules here in Wikipedia for the correct handling with sources and against private OR. By the way, "ruler of Galilee" and "ruler in Galilee" is the same difference like "ruler of Afghanistan" or "warlord in Afghanistan", do you know which difference I mean? -- Roksanna ( talk) 21:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The Arabs do not need the "of" because as well as many other nations in the world they know how to use the Genitiv. However, they have "fii" for "in", and this is a difference. Anyway, this is not the problem: The problem is the manipulatiuon of the source. And, by the way, I cannot really believe that you think Galilee would be not anachronostic. And, last but not least, Daher ruled over much more than just Galilee, it was you who mentioned his full title. -- Roksanna ( talk) 20:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Galilee is anachronistic because the title was unique made for Daher, not describing any real terrorial administrative unit of the Ottoman time. Galilee today is only used to replace the use of Palestine. Again: Daher ruled over more than just Galilee, and furthermore he did not just rule anywhere in Galilee. Again: The referred source is the EoI which writes "Northern Palestine" and in the international use Palestine is much more understandable than Galilee. Again: Are you a better historian than the EoI authors? If yes, which publications from you should I know? (Attention: rhetorial question, no need to answer) -- Roksanna ( talk) 18:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, maybe "Palestine" also was not any special territorial or administrative unit in the Ottoman time. However, it was a geographical term during all the times until today. Today, the EoI was written in our times for readers in our times, it is an easy understandable and popular term, while Galilee is only used by some special political reasons to prevent the use of the term Palestine. Finally, correct citation is and stays the main argument: the EoI clearly writes Palestine in his introduction text, to change it would be at least OR or even a source manipulation. -- Roksanna ( talk) 08:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This edit war cannot continue. As of now both of you can be reported to ARBPIA. This debate seems to be going around in circles. I have no problem with either northern Palestine or Galilee, but in a case like this, we have to rely on prevalence, not just one source (the EoI). What do most sources say? Galilee or Northern Palestine? So far, looking at the Philip and Doumani sources, as well as other scholarly sources not used in this article (Peter Malcolm Holt, Eugene Rogan, Kamil Mansur and Phillip Mattar to name a few) Daher is referred to as the "ruler" or "strongman" of the "Galilee". In fact the name was in his official title. Therefore, Galilee seems to be the appropriate term to use here. I would not take the narrow and unfounded view that using "Galilee" is nothing more than a means to avoid "Palestine". If and when there is a need to use the traditional geographical term of Palestine, then obviously it can and should be used. Unless it could be proven that northern Palestine is indeed the common term to refer to Daher's sheikhdom, Galilee should not be replaced. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 04:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
-- Roksanna ( talk) 09:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Possible compromises
Not at all. Galilee is far away from being a general accepted neutral term. And also it is not a well-known term. The popular term is Northern Palestine and this ies exactly what the scientists of the EoI use. -- Roksanna ( talk) 19:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
It is not a question of doing good or bad. Scientific works have to follow rules about citation as well as such an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia does. I have not made these rules but they are logical and they are generally valid. I made proposals to replace the wrong term Galilee as well as the unwanted term Palestine. If there is no compromise I have to continue to insist on the correct citation. -- Roksanna ( talk) 12:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
-- Roksanna ( talk) 11:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
No good answer? -- Roksanna ( talk) 16:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Whatever! Which word ever you prefer, it is not an answer to these two questions. -- Roksanna ( talk) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
No need to repeat anything, just answer these two simple questions! Nothing else, only these two questions! -- Roksanna ( talk) 15:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
-- Roksanna ( talk) 15:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
There are several references which are not given in the Biblio-part. And "year" is mostly missing, so it is not easy to guess which books/articles one refers to. Examples:
*Barnay, p. 15, Barnay, p. 148, Barnay, p. 156.
Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 21:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don´t understand these refs:
PEF, 1881, p. 285 is about the Siloam text (in Jerusalem). And the 1881 edition of the Quarterly statement only goes to page 328, so what does p. 338, or pp. 376-377 refer to? Huldra ( talk) 21:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
On a separate note, do you know of any sources that say az-Zeeb, Arbel and I'billin had fortifications dating to the Daher el-Omar period? -- Al Ameer ( talk) 22:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I have checked all the Sharon-books, and here is where "Zahir al-Umar" is mentioned:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |isbn13=
ignored (
help)
I know this was discussed some time ago, but as I've worked on the article lately, I've noticed that none of the ~35 scholarly sources that support this article use the name "Daher el-Omar". Most often, his surname is spelled "Dahir", followed by "Zahir" and "Dhaher". The article "el-" is rarely used. Most sources use "al-". The surname "Omar" is used a lot, but not as much as "Umar". I think it's best to move the article to "Dahir al-Umar", which is the name used most often by the scholarly sources and The Encyclopedia Brittanica [3]. Any objections? -- Al Ameer ( talk) 22:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: FunkMonk ( talk · contribs) 12:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: Thanks for the thorough review FunkMonk. It's always nice when a reviewer's concerns or suggestions could significantly improve an article. I believe I have addressed your points to the best of my abilities. Some things like the names of Zahir's female family members, or more details about certain incidents like Yaqub Agha's execution and teenage Zahir's deadly brawl, are a bit of a problem because of limitations with the sources. Not sure if or where info on these matters exists. Let me know if there is anything else that should be addressed. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 20:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Querying the very odd use of these terms in lede. "northern Palestine" is a difficult term since the question of where "Palestine" is or was is problematic. Galilee is a more specific term. Querying the relationship with Egypt. Muhammad Ali of Egypt formally recognized Ottoman sovereignty. Ali Pasha was a pasha. What was Zahir al-Umar formal status vis a vis the Empire? Querying use of the term "autonomous", also "domain" and "reign" Extremelyodd terms, and not terms used on Wikipedia to describe Ali Pasha, who was, after all, a far bigger deal in the world and ceertainly did not take orders from the Divine Porte. In sum - the lede is problematic. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 02:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Al Ameer son: the quote comes from here. Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I recently stumbled across the Thomas Philipp book "Acre: The Rise and Fall of a Palestinian City, 1730-1831", and was going to suggest it as a source, but I see that's already been done. However, the map on p. 228 shows that Zahir al-Umar's rule over Nablus, Jerusalem, Gaza, and Ramla was rather brief and transitory (during the war that led to his overthrow), so I'm not sure why it's given such prominence in the infobox at the top of the article... AnonMoos ( talk) 14:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The name "Bani Saqr," a Bedouin tribe, is mentioned a dozen times on the page in its present form. Does this refer to the Bani (or Beni) Sakhr (بنو صخر) tribe "of Jordan" as that page describes them? If so, the identity needs to be indicated with wikilinks and consistent spelling. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 19:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
He did not "rule Palestine" in any meaningful sense, since when his realm was stable, it was mostly confined to the Galilee and coastal region to the west. His soldiers only moved into other areas as part of the war which led to his overthrow. He was certainly by far the most prominent local ruler in Palestine (as opposed to Ottoman governors and such), but he did not rule over Palestine. AnonMoos ( talk) 12:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Pretending like Palestine was the name of the levant before the British resurrected the king dead word is silly. The ottomans referred to the area as a district of Damascus. Calling it "Palestine" won't make it true. 2600:387:F:D17:0:0:0:5 ( talk) 06:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Arminden: Interesting observation: "The blue cultural heritage plaque shown on Google Maps indicates Zahir's son, "Chulaybee", as the builder and the year as 1745, so half a decade after the city walls. What does Petersen say (Google Books doesn't show it)?"
'Chulaybee' is a wild English transliteration of Salibi (also spelled Celebi or Sulaybi), Zahir's eldest son and his multazim or governor of Tiberias. According to Petersen, Salibi was appointed to the post sometime after the failed siege of Tiberias by Sulayman Pasha al-Azm in 1742. Petersen does not credit Salibi for any construction. In the 'Fortifications' section of the Tiberias chapter, Petersen says Zahir built his Tiberias wall "in the 1730s and 1740s", without mentioning any work by Salibi. Still, it is very plausible that Salibi, in charge of Tiberias between c. 1742 and presumably his death in 1773, undertook his own building works in the city, including the citadel, as Zahir's other sons carried out such work in the towns they controlled. I suspect the plaque is correct, but it is not an RS, so will look for something more solid shortly. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 16:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Sulaybi is likely based on the Arabic diminutive form... AnonMoos ( talk) 17:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Any thoughts on whether or not to continue to present these two images, File:Daher el-Omar portrait 1.jpg and File:Daher el-Omar 001.JPG, in the article? They are both modern, artistic representations of the subject, but most probably have no relation to Zahir al-Umar's actual appearance or dress. (There are no known portraits or sketches of Zahir al-Umar, at least as far I know, and I have yet to see a written description of his appearance from a credible source.) My opinion about this has evolved recently. I propose that we drop the first image, at least from the infobox, while keeping either this same image or the second one elsewhere in the article, perhaps in the Legacy section. Will wait for further input before proceeding. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 18:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)