Talk:Simon Shaheen

Citizenship

Is he a U.S. citizen? Badagnani 02:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

From Galilee to Haifa

How could he and his family move from Galilee to Haifa -- at age 2 (c.1957) -- when Palestinians were prevented from crossing the green line. Did they move there secretly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.202.154 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Isn't Tarshiha within Israel's borders? That would mean he was born an Israeli citizen, within the borders of Israel. Badagnani 03:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that contributor was confused by the location of the Galilee. The Galilee is not in the West Bank and it is therefore not beyond the Green Line. Or, perhaps, he is referring to the restrictions of movement imposed on Arabs in Israel under the Israeli military government that ruled over Arab areas in Israel from 1948 to 1966.--Kishkushim 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with bio

"Simon Shaheen (b. Tarshiha, northern Galilee, 1955) is a Palestinian-born oud and violin virtuoso and composer."

This is a very problematic opening for the biography. Tarshiha is in Israel's internationally recognized borders. It is not in the disputed Palestinian territories. To say that Shaheen is "Palestinian-born" is therefore incorrect. He was born an Israeli citizen in the state of Israel. Tarshiha is not beyond the "Green Line" (not in the West Bank). If Shaheen objects to being called an Israeli and Wikipedia intends to please the subjects of its entries, then this line could read "Simon Shaheen (b. Tarshiha, northern Galilee, 1955) is a Palestinian oud and violin virtuoso and composer born in Israel." Or: "Simon Shaheen (b. Tarshiha, northern Galilee, Israel, 1955) is a Palestinian oud and violin virtuoso and composer." We should be dealing with objective realities - namely the existence of an internationally recognized geographic entity called Israel - and not succumbing to political agendas (the denial of its existence).

Kishkushim 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe he self-identifies as Palestinian. You appear to be familiar with the naming and territorial dispute, and we do allow individuals to identify with their particular culture. For example, in the United States we have a place called the Navajo Nation which is a sovereign nation, though within the U.S. borders (and Navajos were made U.S. citizens in the early 20th century). So it can be complex. Let's first find out how he identifies his place of birth in his own bios (if Israel, then we can fix it), but I'm pretty sure he identifies as Palestinian, not an Israeli person. It should be noted that he often performs together with Jewish musicians, using music as a bridge between cultures, so is not a hard-liner politically. Badagnani 19:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this one, on first reading, looks good: "Simon Shaheen (b. Tarshiha, northern Galilee, Israel, 1955) is a Palestinian oud and violin virtuoso and composer." Badagnani 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I checked his official bio and it does omit all mention of Israel, and stating that he's Palestinian (but not saying that he was born in Palestine, instead calling it "Galilee"). Badagnani 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do not think it is our place to deny anyone their right to identify themselves as belonging to one culture or another. This is why I did not omit the identification of Mr. Shaheen as a Palestinian. Many Arabs living in Israel identify themselves as Palestinians. However, the need for geographic accuracy dictates that we indicate that the village of Tarshiha is in Israel, within the 1948 borders recognized by the overwhelming majority of the international community. If he were born in Ramallah, Gaza City or East Jerusalem, it would be a different matter. In any case, thank you for looking up the official bio and for understanding where I'm coming from!--Kishkushim 20:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the changes I've just made and see if you can answer the questions at the top, thanks. Badagnani 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Related, I changed "Israeli-Arab" village to "Arab village in Israel". While some Arabs identify as "Israeli Arab", Israel does not recognize "Israeli" to be a nationality but only a citizenship (recognized "nationalities" include Arab, Jewish, Druze etc...). So, in the term "Israeli Arab" the word "Israeli" really is just the adjective of "Israel", rather than a national character. It is much less confusing, therefore, to simply call the village an "Arab village in Israel". This conveys that the village is in Israel, without implying that Israeli identity is somehow central to the village. This could cause undue confusion for readers who see both that Simon identifies as Palestinian but he spent a lot of time in an "Israeli Arab" village, potentially implying that in this village there were many Arabs who identified as Israelis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.60.144 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of categories, etc.

Although it may be considered "better form" to use citation-needed tags, WP:BLP policy mandates that unsourced information be removed from BLP articles immediately and without waiting for discussion or consensus. This rule is not subject to WP:3RR, so I will be reverting the undo, and I expect the offending material to be sourced before it is restored.

Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It was sourced in my edit. And that policy relates of course to the possibility of denigrating the living person, which was not an issue here in any event.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like some of it was sourced in your edit, but the haphazard manner in which you inserted external links leaves it unclear what you are trying to support. I'd like to be clear that I don't object to any of these per se, but some of them are conflicting or conflict with the article text. For instance: Is Shaheen Israeli or Palestinian? It's kind of a big difference, and it needs to be worked out.

I'm not looking to get into an edit war about this, so it might be helpful if you could add inline citations, see what we do and don't have references for and then pull out the categories that don't fit.

To clarify on the BLP issue, the policy is not restricted to negative material about a person: "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." — Bdb484 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the conflict is between being Israeli and Palestinian.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you what: That's not a discussion I'm going anywhere near. The point is that the article needs to be cleaned up. Do you plan on participating constructively? — Bdb484 (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added 23 refs. I would call him both an Israeli and a Palestinian.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And btw, while the language that you quote is accurately quoted, the rule's focus in that regard is clearly on negative information. Stress added in the following quotes.

So, for example, it says ... "Rationale: ... material we publish about living people can seriously affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends...." So nothing in the article would run afoul of the rationale of the policy.

Also, "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material: Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith" ... and "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard."

And "Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles about living persons...From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles."

And -- I believe you skipped this one -- "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed."

And "Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard."

So my reading of all of this is that where, as here, the information was neither contentious or defamatory, and a quick google search by you would have revealed it to be accurate, if you wanted to be helpful the correct approach would have been to improve the article, not to delete the material you deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for hunting those references down. If you get a chance, it would be ideal to convert them from external links to inline citations. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. If I had an ideal amount of time, I would, but sadly I don't. Feel free to contribute by inlining them yourself if you like, or otherwise adding text or refs to the article to improve it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)