Talk:Zahir al-Umar

message: 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)
replies: text: Added info from Encyclopaedia of Islam, still needs improvement. AnonMoos 03:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: 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)
replies: text: He didn't lead a bedouin or animal-herding lifestyle, but his family seems to have had influential connections to bedouin leaders. AnonMoos (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Not sure what that's supposed to mean -- Dhaher apparently used his family's tribal ties to help vault himself from a semi-obscure local notable to a strong regional ruler.  I completely fail to see any valid analogy to British-Mogul relations... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He was from the Bani Zaidan tribe. Not a bedouin in the sense of nomadic lifestyle, but hailing from a bedouin bloodline. His family tree can be traced back to Ali actually. I know people in Nazareth from the same bloodline and the tree goes that far back. Tiamuttalk 15:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bedouin?

message: 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)
replies: text: According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the consonant in question is Arabic ظ, which is not normally transcribed into English as "d", except when recording purely colloquial pronunciations of certain dialects (without reference to Arabic-alphabet spellings).  I changed it from "D" to "Dh" to better reflect Arabic ظ... AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki naming conventions suggests that we should use the spelling favoured in the scholarship. In this case, "Daher el-Omar" is the most common spelling used (200 hits google book hits), followed by "Daher al-Omar" (36 hits) "Dhaher el-Omar" (34 hits), and lastly our current spelling "Dhaher al-Omar" (only 4 hits). I'm moving the page to the spelling most commonly used. Tiamuttalk 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: So it's been a long time since your comment, but anyway I'm a new user. I would point out, being a native Arabic speaker, that there is actually some ambiguity between these two characters; especially since Arabic was not a standard written language for a very long time, the practices vary, although almost anybody I know with that name today would spell it as it appears in the Arabic wikipedia article.Abedwayyad (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ظ and ض were pronounced differently in early Arabic, but seem to have fallen together in most varieties of Arabic speech in Umayyad times (though kept separate in tajwid).  For the purposes of English Wikipedia (concerning a historical figure, not a modern surname), I think we should really stick with the Encyclopaedia of Islam, unless there is strong evidence against it... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name spelling

message: 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)
replies: text: So it's been a long time since your comment, but anyway I'm a new user. I would point out, being a native Arabic speaker, that there is actually some ambiguity between these two characters; especially since Arabic was not a standard written language for a very long time, the practices vary, although almost anybody I know with that name today would spell it as it appears in the Arabic wikipedia article.Abedwayyad (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ظ and ض were pronounced differently in early Arabic, but seem to have fallen together in most varieties of Arabic speech in Umayyad times (though kept separate in tajwid).  For the purposes of English Wikipedia (concerning a historical figure, not a modern surname), I think we should really stick with the Encyclopaedia of Islam, unless there is strong evidence against it... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest Arabic Wikipedia twist

message: I kind of suspected that might happpen... AnonMoos (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic Wikipedia has now gone back to ظاهر 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Burial place 

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: I don't feel like following a link to "books.google.es" right now, so what source is that, and why is it more reliable than the Encyclopaedia of Islam? AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you change the .es to .com you'll get the same book. It's the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, in English. I have no opinion about its reliability vis-a-vis the Encyclopedia of Islam. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead

message: Is there any reference for this claim?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylad2000 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already in the article in 2006, before I started expanding from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, have no idea on any source... AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looting travelers  

message: #Why do you think the Wikipedia-rules for correct citation are valid for everybody else excepted you? Do you have a special status you want to inform me about?
#Why do you think your idea is more intelligent than what the historians and authors of the Encyclopaedia of Islam wrote? Are you a better historian and published some reputable literature you can mention here?
--Roksanna (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you stopped beating your dead horse yet?  Can you give us a rough time estimate as to when you will have ceased this hippothanatomastigatory activity? AnonMoos (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, you have no answer. I did not expect anything else. --Roksanna (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you didn't like the word "hippothanatomastigatory", pretend I said "equimortiflagellatory"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

text: All previously-raised factual issues have already been discussed at reasonable length above.  If you have new issues to raise, then do so -- but merely rehashing old issues, with greater accusatory emotionalism this time around, does not require any particular response on my part. AnonMoos (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Two questions

message: the quote comes from here. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll revise the citation. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Hero

message: 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)
thread_title: Thomas Philipp map

message: 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)
replies: text: I’ll double check. The Bani Saqr were an influential tribe in the northern Jordan Valley, on either side of the river—separate from the Bani Sakhr. —Al Ameer (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bani Saqr 

message: 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)
thread_title:  short description "ruler of Palestine" 

message: 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)
replies: text: In the 18th century among Arabic-speaking Muslims, the word "Filastin" would have actually meant the old caliphal Jund Filastin, which was not a good geographical match for Zahir's realm... AnonMoos (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Jund Filastin is not relevant to this period, and so neither are its boundaries. Most of the sources, especially the main ones used in the article, describe the region as 'Palestine' unless discussing the Galilee specifically, and even then, often use 'northern Palestine' interchangeably. His rule extended to the northern coastal plain and the Jezreel Valley, areas which he held for 20 to 25 years in addition to the Galilee hill country; eventually it extended to Jaffa for a few years as well. People there in the 18th century--Muslims, Christians and Jews alike--probably did not use the word 'Syria' either (the term did not gain much coinage among the population until the 19th century), but modern (especially Western) historians from the 19th century onward generally use 'Syria' to refer to the whole region during Ottoman rule or 'Palestine' to refer to the area approximating to present-day Israel/Palestine/parts of Lebanon and Jordan during the same period. Often what people called their region in their time is not what historians use to refer to the same region during the same period. Not sure if or how commonly the people in the Galilee in Zahir's time called their region 'al-Jalil', even though the Arabic word for the region has been attested in Muslim geographers' works from the early Islamic period. Certainly the 'Levant' was not used at all by the people and was much less common among historians until recently. What the Ottomans called their administrative districts (which for most purposes in Syria were meaningless as local strongmen often ruled with little regard to those boundaries for much of Ottoman history) is also generally not used by historians to refer to cultural and geographic regions. Al Ameer (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct in every respect. Zerotalk 05:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Al_Ameer_son -- You were quite erudite, but you didn't refute the main point, that among Arabic-speaking Muslims in the eighteenth century, the word Palestine (Filastin) was rather infrequently used.  If they did use it at all, it was likely an antiquarian reference to the Caliphal period, or due to Christian/European influences... AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Palestine"  the word would not have been used at that time. 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not fond of pretend portraits, so I'm happy if they are reduced. Just now I searched the travelogue of the Abbé Mariti, who visited during Zahir's later years, but though Mariti says a lot about him there is no physical description. There are images but the scan I have only has their edges showing and I don't know what they are images of. Zerotalk 02:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seeing that there has been no further input, I removed the image. I do not believe Mariti has an image of Zahir, but I could be wrong. All I have seen are modern "pretend" portraits of Zahir thus far. Al Ameer (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portraits (revisited)