User talk:MWahaiibii

Semitic people

What is the logic of these categories? They do not seem to me well supported by RS. Srnec (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

They are essentially similar to the Germanic people by century categories, but for the Semitic-speaking groups of people. MWahaiibii (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Need your attention

Hello dear, can you please take a look here and let me know what you think? Thanks in advance.--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semitic people category

Hello, just wanted to leave a note that you seem to be adding the categories based on location more than the ethnicity/race, and to some people of disputed race. Just wanted to ask you to be more careful. Thanks. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, I would say be careful with people described as being from Syria, or even described as Syrian, as this does not always guarantee Semitic origin; many unrelated groups lived there for a long period of time. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the help. Regarding Leo III, the article does not show any ethnic disputes, or I might have missed it? Only him being of Syrian origin is presented, hence I added the Semitic category. --MWahaiibii (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@MWahaiibii: You wouldn't have seen that unless you went looking for it or already knew it. Unfortunately, a lot of the non-GA Roman emperor articles aren't great. A unique mix of enough interest to be some of the first articles made, but not enough interest and sources to get the attention they need; a lot of emperor articles have had issues fester for nearly two decades as a result. In the case of Leo, his appellation of "the Isaurian" comes from Theophanes the Confessor who said he came from Isauria, geographically near Syria but ethnically unrelated. At this point in time, it's impossible to be certain if he was a Syrian or Isaurian, but for some reason, the article only presents Leo as Syrian. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Moukahla

Dictionaries do not establish either relevance or close association (per MOS:FORLANG). Like I said, if a Berber name is added, both names will be removed and a discussion will ensue. If you're not happy with the way I left it (open for the others to follow your example), then the name will be removed and you will need to seek consensus for its inclusion, because describing it as "definitely relevant" doesn't make it so and the bar will be set as high for you as you set it for the others. M.Bitton (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, the word itself is Arabic, and it is used by contemporary Arabic writings of the period, not only dicitonaries. Other than that, I dont get it. If you do not mind tellig me, what constitutes relevance or association per MOS:FORLANG --MWahaiibii (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it's also known as the Kabyle musket should tell you something. When I think of the word Moukahla (which was used for centuries by all Maghrebis, regardless of their ethnic background), neither Arabic nor Berber comes to mind (that's what the close association is about). Nowadays, the word is used as a generic term to describe any rifle, as attested in one of the sources that you added (about an Automatic rifle); the other source was about the Arquebus and the generic term for any firearm. M.Bitton (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

-"The fact that it's also known as the Kabyle musket should tell you something"

Kayble musket is an alternative name by western sources, there is no reference to it being called Kabyle musket (مكحلة قبايلية) by the natives (Maghrebis) at all, as I said it was known by natives as only Moukahla مكحلة which is an Arabic word.

-"When I think of the word Moukahla (which was used for centuries by all Maghrebis, regardless of their ethnic background), neither Arabic nor Berber comes to mind"

So you are associating the term with ethnic groups and not the associated languages? When it clearly says the relevant foreign-language. It does not matter if the word was used by multiple ethnic groups but rather the term itself is Arabic. Maghrebis (both Berber and Arab), used the term Moukahla to describe the rifles while being aware that it is an Arabic word, no one associates it to any Berber language at all. And by the way, I'm all for adding both Arabic and Berber name since they both are considered the relevant foreign-languages, but unfortunately I could not find any references to any Berber equivalent of Moukahla. --MWahaiibii (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The Kabyles and the other Berber groups have their own language. You keep repeating that it's an Arabic word, but it sure as hell doesn't sound like one and I don't see a RS saying that. Anyway, we both know where we stand on this issue, so there is no need to rehash what was said. M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

-"The Kabyles and the other Berber groups have their own language"

Berbers Having their own languages don't stop the word from being used in Arabic and vice versa or don't stop it more .

-"You keep repeating that it's an Arabic word, but it sure as hell doesn't sound like one and I don't see a RS saying that."

Well If you have basic knowledge of Arabic I'm sure as hell It's going to sound Arabic to you. the sources on Moukahla itself are scarce, yet still you can find multiple publications referring to it as an Arabic word if you did a little bit of effort:

• du mot arabe moukahla signifiant "fusil à pierre", Es argots, noyau ou marges de la langue, Université de Franche-Comté
• "moukala", de origen árabe, Romance Studies Past and Present

In the end, I think your understanding of relevant foreign-language or closely associated language is totally wrong. You first went for the ethnic groups and now you are asking for the etymology of the word rather than it's equivalent (regardless of the actual origin of the word). I don't know why it is hard for you to understand that it can be called Moukahla in Both the Berber languages and Arabic, although as I said, sources that I found describe the word as an Arabic word so therefore it is completely eligible to add the Arabic equivalent. While a Berber equivalent needs a bit more research. Thanks. --MWahaiibii (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

We wouldn't be having this lengthy discussion if you spent more time reading what I wrote instead of trying to make a point. At no point did I suggest that it can't be called Moukahla in both languages (by Berber name, I was referring to the script, since that's what's being discussed here). A cherry picked source describing it as an Arabic word without giving any explanation as to how they arrived to such conclusion doesn't make it a fact, and while it may be relevant to an etymology section (just like the French word "Moukahla" that made it into English), it definitely doesn't establish a close association as the word (Template:Lang-ar) that you added is a) unsourced and b) associated with the Kohl Eye Liner (that's the first, if not the only thing that anyone searching for it will end up looking at). If a Berber transliteration is added (no source necessary), then we'll have proper discussion on the article's talk page. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

-"A cherry picked source describing it as an Arabic word without giving any explanation as to how they arrived to such conclusion doesn't make it a fact"

Well by accusing me of cherry-picking, naturally it means there are sources which are against Moukahla being an Arabic word, mind providing them to back your claim? Even the dictionaries I cited before are considered as sources for the word being in the Arabic language. And again for the last time, we are NOT discussing the etymology for them to provide an explanation on how it ended up in the Arabic language.

-"it definitely doesn't establish a close association as the word (Template:Lang-ar)"

It does establish a close association with the Arabic language since the prevalent language of the Maghreb at the time was Arabic and Berber, and what is the equivalent of Moukahla in Arabic? It's (Template:Lang-ar).

-"the word (Template:Lang-ar) that you added is a) unsourced and b) associated with the Kohl Eye Liner (that's the first, if not the only thing that anyone searching for it will end up looking at)."

a) I just added multiple sources (including the dictionaries; since you said the word itself is unsourced, but the word is present in the dictionaries) for the word (Template:Lang-ar) being mentioned as referring to a rifle/gun.

b) They got the same name does that mean the word is wrong? Of course not. Try searching up (Template:Lang-ar) ('Moukahla Weapon') next time if you want results to the weapon and not the more popular Kohl. Lastly, you wouldn't be done if you are here to genuinely discuss the matter though. --MWahaiibii (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Semitic categories part III

Hello MWahaiibii ,

I see people have brought it up on your talk page before, but I really don't like the idea of forcing people out of "Xth century people" and into Semitic categories. At the very least, these should be non-diffusing categories that articles can be in both. But more generally, this is a bad idea in general. Semites are an obsolete concept that nobody uses anymore because it combines disparate people who would have had no idea they were being grouped at the time. Can I convince you to cease creating these categories? Have any of these been discussed at a noticeboard or CFD or the like where there's consensus for their creation and use? SnowFire (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I get your concerns, but It is not "Semites" rather it's "Semitic-speaking" peoples, an academically used linguistic grouping for these peoples. You are confusing the two terms. Besides the older Semitic category talks are not related, one user simply did not agree with one addition (Leo the Isaurian). Also, I doubt groups like Germanics, Iranians, Baltics and Bengalis had an idea that they were grouped at the time too (Check: Category Indo-European peoples). I'm merely following the same layout of all other Linguistic grouping categories. Thanks --MWahaiibii (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition, you do realise there is already a category grouping different Semitic groups do you?(Check: Category:Semitic-speaking_peoples) The one thing I did was adding a 'by century' sub-category, no more no less. --MWahaiibii (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar that the term is still used in linguistics and don't have a problem with Category:Semitic-speaking_peoples (by the way, stick a colon in front to link to a category page like this). That said, we don't generally categorize people by language spoken (unless they're authors). In other words, it's fine to have the container category for Semitic-speaking peoples, and it's fine to say XYZ was an Arab or an Assyrian or the like, but people should not directly be categorized as Semitic (e. g. this edit). These categories are in places like Category:2nd-century BC people by nationality, and the idea of a "Semitic ethnicity" is something that was only taken seriously in the 1800s really, so that's where my objection is - that "Semitic" is a category like "Germanic" or "Greek" for ethnicity / nationality. Maybe there's a name change that would fix it? Any ideas? But "Semitic nationality" is not a thing, again unless you're in the 1800s. SnowFire (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:3rd-century BC Arabs

A tag has been placed on Category:3rd-century BC Arabs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

About Muhammad al-Jazuli

MWahaiibii Hello, as you can see in A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period He is from Jazula Berber tribe of Sous. This tribe is a name of an old tribe that is nowadays related to Shilha people (please check this article [The major Berber groups - Aljazeera.net]), it says

""الشلوح" يوجدون في وسط جبال الأطلس الكبير وغربه وفي منطقة سوس، وكذلك الأطلس الصغير. وتستخدم لهجة الشلوح في مناطق الجنوب الشرقي، وسهل سوس التي كانت تعرف قديما باسم "جزولة".

translation :

"Shilha" They are found in the middle and west of the High Atlas Mountains and in the Souss region, as well as the Anti-Atlas. The shilha dialect is used in the southeastern regions, and the Suss plain, which was known in the past as "Gazoula/Jazula".

That's what makes him a Shilha. I didn't provide any source bcs I thought it was obvious since the source is mentioned in the next paragraph Thanks --AyourAchtouk (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)