Edit in the article al-Midya
Nableezy, asalam aleikum. With your permission, I wish to make a historical addition to the Wikipedia page al-Midya, in the section that reads: History. I wish to add the following paragraph, and which is to be placed directly before the current last paragraph:
- The ancient village of Modiʿin / Modiʿuth, described in the Madaba Map as Μωδεειμ, Mōdeeim, and once the dwelling place of the Hasmoneans, is thought to have been preserved in its Arabicised form al-Midya.[1], and which village originally occupied the site (now Khirbet er-Râs) directly to its south-east.[1] In the Madaba Map, the site is marked by two towers having a single entranceway, and reads in Greek uncials: "Modiʿim, today Modʿitha, whence came the Maccabees."[1]
References
Davidbena (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- looks fine to me David, nableezy - 02:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Israeli occupation of the West Bank
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Israeli occupation of the West Bank 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Deprecation discussion
Nableezy, I've been thinking about raising two deprecation related questions and wanted to know if you had any thoughts/suggestions. The first is what is the standard for deprecation. It seems that we have a rather clear idea what you can/can't do with a deprecated source but we don't have clear criteria where a source moves from generally unreliable to deprecate. Second, should we have a separate process for nominating any source for deprecation? Tied to this question is should the typical RSN RfC be changed from 1-4 to 1-3 (no deprecation option)? Finally, where is the proper place for this discussion? Thanks for your thoughts. Springee (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- There isnt actually any policy laying out deprecation, and any attempt to create one is stymied by the editors who have taken advantage of this situation to impose this standard. And now, for any number of topics, people are attempting to impose some sort of ideological purity test on sources. I actually hate the entire idea of RSN being filled with sparsely attended RFCs that purportedly rule out entire publications across the entire encyclopedia. RSN is supposed to be a board to answer a question of the form "is this source reliable for this statement?" Now its people trying to rule out sources they dislike followed by robotic implementations of "deprecation" that result in iron-clad reliable sources being removed by somebody who hasnt even attempted to read the sentence they are editing. What to do about that? Well there was Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources, which went absolutely nowhere, and you have absurdities like an editor claiming that what never had a proposal at VPP pass to create a policy now requires a formal VPP process to modify. We have somehow ended up in a place where the people who seek to enforce these blanket bans on sources they dislike but cant argue against particular uses of them have determined that a. they are unquestionably right and despite having no policy backing can enforce their position through reverts, and b. demand that what they never did, get a policy backing for their edits, is something you must do to revert them. Its insane tbh. Some of those sources on this list come from well-attended discussions and could reasonably be said to form a consensus of the English Wikipedia editorship on the quality of a source. Some of them come from 5 people with an axe to grind and cannot. Idk what to do, too many vested users with an interest in maintaining the status quo. A status quo that is bullshit based on nothing, but it is the status quo. nableezy - 12:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with what you are saying. When I have a bit of time I'm going to try to put together some sort of minimum concern list at least regarding deprecations. I feel like the need for it made more sense prior to the creation of RSP. While I think RSP and it's bucketing is flawed, it does seem to make deprecation redundant as with the list anything in #3/generally unreliable is unlikely to be used. Prior to RSP one would have to search through various archives to argue if Rolling Stone was OK for a particular topic. Now you can refer to the summary. That makes it much faster for both those who are checking if a source is OK and for those who are concerned about how a source is being used. If RSP were in place before Daily Mail was deprecated would we have even created the deprecate bucket? If yes, why do we still have it or argue over deprecating sources that are used rarely? Anyway, this is my line of thinking. Would you like to be kept in the loop? Springee (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, nableezy - 15:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with what you are saying. When I have a bit of time I'm going to try to put together some sort of minimum concern list at least regarding deprecations. I feel like the need for it made more sense prior to the creation of RSP. While I think RSP and it's bucketing is flawed, it does seem to make deprecation redundant as with the list anything in #3/generally unreliable is unlikely to be used. Prior to RSP one would have to search through various archives to argue if Rolling Stone was OK for a particular topic. Now you can refer to the summary. That makes it much faster for both those who are checking if a source is OK and for those who are concerned about how a source is being used. If RSP were in place before Daily Mail was deprecated would we have even created the deprecate bucket? If yes, why do we still have it or argue over deprecating sources that are used rarely? Anyway, this is my line of thinking. Would you like to be kept in the loop? Springee (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Edit in the article "Beneberak"
Nableezy, with your permission, I wish to make the following edit in the article Beneberak:
The town of Beneberak (Banaibarka) is specifically named in the Aramaic stele (Oriental Institute Prism) detailing Sennacherib's military exploits in the country, along with the towns of Beth-Dagon and Joppa, among others, as places subdued by him.[1] (End quote)
I suppose that I'll also need to add a section heading, entitled "History".
References
- ^ Luckenbill, D.D. (1924). James Henry Breasted (ed.). The Annals of Sennacherib. Vol. 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 33 (lines 68–77). OCLC 610530695. (Reprint 2005)