Talk:Zahir al-Umar

Source

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)

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

Bedouin?

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)

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)

So what? the East India company had "influential connections" with the Moghuls. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. Tiamut^talk 15:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Name spelling

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))

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)

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. Tiamut^talk 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest Arabic Wikipedia twist

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)

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abedwayyad (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

Arabic Wikipedia has now gone back to ظاهر

I kind of suspected that might happpen... AnonMoos (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Burial place

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)

Dead

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)

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)

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)

Looting travelers

Is there any reference for this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylad2000 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Pictures

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)

I added one of the portraits from Hebrew wiki and put it in the new infobox. Thanks for pointing those out. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to crop off the bottom of the portrait as it conflicts with the article on the year of birth, says "Governor of Palestine" (which the article doesn't say he was), and includes the artist's phone number.

I think a gallery at the bottom of the article with the pictures of the structures from he.wiki might be a nice addition here. Let me know if you need help with translation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem is that whoever made the infobox left out the "ca." from "ca. 1690"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Northern Palestine

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)

The Ottomans themselves chose to give him the title of "Sheikh of Acre, Amir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee". In the 18th century Ottoman empire there was no administrative unit called "Palestine", only vague historical memories of the old Caliphal Jund Filastin, which did not include the area where Dhahir ruled. So basically only Europeans would have called that area "Palestine" at the time, and not the actual inhabitants of the area. Furthermore, the expression "northern Palestine" is somewhat vague and indeterminate, and unfortunately doesn't do too much to convey a precise idea of the area that Dhahir actually ruled over. AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Here we have two different problems.

1. The whole article is mainly based on the Encyclopaedia of Islam. The first part is directly referred to the EoI. However, the EoF does not write that he was a ruler of Galilee, the EoI clearly uses the term "Palestine". So if you cite this source, you have to use this term or it would be a manipulation of this source.
2. Both of us know that the term "Galilee" is mainly used (especially by Israelis) to replace every imagination of Palestine. However, Emir Daher lived long before the Israeli-Palestinean conflict began and long enough after the ancient Galilee was gone.

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)

However, nothing that the Israeli government does can change the core meaning of "Galilee" in English, which is basically what is north of Jenin (though some further definitional elaborations and quibbles around the edges are possible). If Dhahir's rule was not centered north of Jenin, then referring to him as the ruler of Galilee would be absurd in the highest degree. However, given the territory which he in fact did rule over, the Galilee is actually a very good fit. If the term Galilee was fallen into desuetude in 1768, then why was it used in his official Ottoman title of that year?? That almost certainly makes it much less desuetudinous than "Palestine", which if it had any meaning in the Arabic of 1768 not due to European influence, would have generally referred to caliphal Jund Filastin, which did not include Dhahir's realm. In fact, your chosen usage of "Palestine" could be considered colonialist, since you prefer the European meaning of the word to the meaning mainly used by the actual inhabitants of the area at the time! This article is less completely dependent on the Encyclopaedia of Islam as a single source than you seem to imagine, and is not bound to slavishly follow every detail of the geographic terminology of that source. In any case, of the two alternative terms, "Palestine" carries far more political baggage than "Galilee" in English usage of 2014... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I have no idea where you get the idea that the expressions "Northern Palestine" and "Northern half of today's Israel" are clearer and more well-defined than "Galilee", when the reverse is overwhelmingly the case. Those terms could easily mean "north of Ramallah" or "north of Tel Aviv", while Galilee can't mean that. AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This was just an additional point. The main argument, however, is still the same: the Encyclopaedia does not write "ruler of Galilee", it writes "ruler of northern Palestine". Either you use this source (the whole article is based on it), then you have to cite correctly and not replace it by your own phrases. Or you find another source what uses the term "ruler of Galilee". By the way, to get the title "ruler of Galilee" and to be the ruler of Galilee is not automatically the same. His territory was bigger than Galilee, this is why the historians of the EoI summarized it into "ruler of northern Palestine". Are you a historian, too? --Roksanna (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The area ruled by Dhahir in 1768 coincides pretty well with the Galilee plus the smaller area of the northern coast (sometimes but not always distinguished from the Galilee); this coastal area is sometimes referred to as the "Plain of Asher" (have no idea what it was called in the 18th-century Ottoman empire). The phrase "northern Palestine" could be convenient to very approximately localize where in the world you're talking about (Asia not Africa, or whatever), but it's much less useful in specifying the exact area which was the core of his domain. As for your personal questions, I'm the one who expanded this article in 2006 by using the Encylopaedia of Islam, when no one else seemed to care too much about it. I'm also a person who dislikes importing modern politics into the middle or ages or ancient times -- and if that's not your goal, you've done very little to convince me of it so far... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 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)

Whatever my level of expertise, it seems to be higher than yours, since your skill set appears to be confined to simplistic copying. If you ever sought to persuade me that you are not primarily motivated by modern politics, then unfortunately for you, you did so in a rather unconvincing way. AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 19 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)

Whatever -- in the context of this article, the term "Palestine" is far more political/ideological than "Galilee", and it seems that you're not bothered by that fact in the slightest. I'm preparing a basic little simplified map for the Galilee article, but finishing it off is taking longer than I thought it would. Meanwhile, it's hardly any form of original research that he was declared to be "Sheikh" of all Galilee" by the Ottoman authorities, and your edits remain as unconstructive as ever... AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 23 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)

Too bad for you that your interest in this article seems to be confined to using literalistic technicalisms to obtrude anachronistic terminology in service of an apparent political agenda. AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. There isn't really any word meaning "of" in the Arabic language... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 27 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)

Actually, he ruled over a relatively small area in addition to traditional Galilee -- namely the coastal plain (anciently the Plain of Asher or southernmost Phoenicia), which is sometimes called "West Galilee" today. Galilee cannot be anachronistic to 1768, since it was used as part of his official 1768 Ottoman title. In fact the geographical words other than "Galilee" in his official 1768 Ottoman title are all names of cities or towns -- "Galilee" is the one which is the name of a region (emphasized by "all")... AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 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)

"Not describing any real terr[it]orial administrative unit of the Ottoman time" goes double for "Palestine" (which if it had any real usage in the Arabic of 1768 not due to European influence, would have described areas not under Dhahir's rule). I've been watching over the improvement of this article for 7½ years; too bad for you that you seemingly have no interest in it other than imposing your political agenda... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 29 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)

If you have any interest in this article other than imposing your personal political agenda, then you have signally failed to make such an interest clear in the above discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 1 May 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)

1. The whole article is mainly based on especially that source: the EoI. The introduction of this article here follows the introduction to the EoI article there. So Galilee is the wrong citation. If you want to add other and further sources which call Daher "ruler of Galilee", so please do not hesitate to do so.
2. About the title which was given him by the Ottomans: Without Ottoman permission or recognation Dhaher in fact ruled over more than a region which never was called with its ancient name since the roman times. Or would you describe the Austro-Hungarian emperor Franz Joseph I. as ruler of Lower Austria just because one of his many many many titles was archduke of Upper and Lower Austria and his capital Vienna is situated in that region? Nonsense!

--Roksanna (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on your editing pattern over the last two weeks, you're a single-purpose account with a narrow pre-defined agenda. Congratulations -- you're one step above a troll... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible compromises

Possible compromises

1. ruler of Acre (and the northern half of what is Israel today) because Acre was his main residence and capital, many sources name Dhaher just as Shaykh/Emir of Acre/Akko
2. ruler in (parts of) the Ottoman Levant because he ruled much more than just Galilee, however, his regional influence was temporalily wider or smaller during his life time. The maximal extension from Bersheba to the Litani river is mentioned already, in 1771 and again in 1772 it was even from Jerusalem to Beirut. So in the Levante is vague enough to include that territorial changes and detailed enough to imagine where he ruled. --Roksanna (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

We've gone all through that before. "Northern half of what is Israel today" could easily be understood as "everything north of Tel Aviv", which was not the extent of Dhahir's realm. "Levant" might possibly serve a purpose in specifying what part of the world we're talking about (i.e. Asia, not Africa or Europe), but is worthless for providing a positive and reasonably accurate specification of the area of Dhahir's rule. Acre is the name of a city, not a region, and was on the edge of Dhahir's realm (though its capital in its later stages). And areas that your armies briefly go through in the middle of a chaotic war, but which you can't hold on to or stably administer for any reasonable length of time, are not ordinarily counted as part of your realm, so Beersheba and Beirut are quite irrelevant.

There's an accepted term in English for areas north of Jenin, west of the Jordan and Kinneret, south of Kedesh, sometimes extending as far west as the Mediterranean, sometimes not quite so far. That term is Galilee. Deal with it... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

Actually, yes, Galilee is indeed the generally accepted term for the region. I don't know how "Galilee" constitutes a biased term. It's widely used by a huge range of sources and if some people never heard of it, they can click on the wikilink. You're making something out of nothing and you continue to treat the EoL as gospel with the justification that the article is primarily sourced to the EoL. It can easily be replaced and in fact I have been adding and rewriting large swathes of material in the article with info from other sources, all of which use the term Galilee. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Roksanna -- You're really not doing any good for anyone right now, least of all yourself, especially now that the logic of your position has led you to deny basic facts and truths. The Greek word Γαλιλαια occurs 61 times in the original ancient Greek New Testament (and an additional 11 times in adjective form), and Jesus himself is called a Galilean at Matthew 26:69, so the word is used in a number of traditional Christian hymns and prayers (not to mention a song which went to #2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and was covered by Elvis Presley), and is therefore very well known to many many Christians. It may have been a point of contention between Israeli Arabs and the Israeli government during certain years, but among the broad general population of English mother-tongue speakers (who largely don't know or care about such past contentions internal to Israel) it is far more of a "general accepted neutral term" than Palestine is! AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 3 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)

You've already made your arguments, and unfortunately much of what you had to say did not greatly impress other people (especially when you felt that you had to over-exaggerate certain arguments to the point of blatant falsehood in order to be convincing). It's really time now to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Two questions

1. 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?
2. 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)

No good answer? --Roksanna (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

I see, you have no answer. I did not expect anything else. --Roksanna (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't like the word "hippothanatomastigatory", pretend I said "equimortiflagellatory"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 13 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)

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)

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)

1. 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?
2. 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) 15:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

References

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.

• Beckett, p. 41.
• Dumper, p. 6.
• Qusner, p. 247.
• Lehmann, p. 31.
• Phillip, 2004,
• Winter, p. 132.

Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I've been meaning to get to those. Will add them soon. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fine, (I added one more: Phillip, 2004, what is that?) Huldra (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is only "Winter, p. 132." which is still undefined. I also had some trouble with the page-number on the Sabbagh-ref....there were´t any on the online source. I´m just guessing the present is correct? Huldra (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don´t understand these refs:

• Palestine Exploration Fund, 1881, p. 338. -->Conder and Kitchener, 1881, SWP I, p. 338
• Palestine Exploration Fund, 1881, p. 285. --> Conder and Kitchener, 1881, SWP I, p. 285
• Palestine Exploration Fund, 1881, pp. 376-377.--> Conder and Kitchener, 1881, SWP I, p. 376-377

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)

Not sure, but here's the link [2]. I already added it to the Bibliography. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that is SWP, I misunderstood, and thought it was Conders report from the same year, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 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)

About I'billin: Conder and Kitchener, 1881, p. 269 writes that "This mosque and a wall to the town are said to have been built by El Hajj Yusef, one of the family of Zeidaniyin"

About az-Zeeb: it is discussed in Petersen, but he does not mention Daher el-Omar, Huldra (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Great. Hajj Yusef was likely Yusef el-Omar, Daher's brother. As for az-Zeeb, does Petersen mention anything about the family's involvement in the fortifications? --Al Ameer (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Petersen does not mention the family at all in the az-Zeeb, in fact he has nothing on az-Zeeb between the 1596-daftar, and the 1799 Jacotin map. Huldra (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I'm removing the unsourced info we have on az-Zeeb and Arbel until any sources could be provided. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sharon:

I have checked all the Sharon-books, and here is where "Zahir al-Umar" is mentioned:

• Sharon, Moshe (1997). Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, A. Vol. 1. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-10833-5.
• Sharon, 1997, pp. 26-28, 32, 38-39, 41-42 46-47, 60

• Sharon, Moshe (1999). Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, B-C. Vol. 2. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-11083-6.
• Sharon, 1999, p. 205

• Sharon, Moshe (2004). Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, D-F. Vol. 3. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-13197-3.
• Sharon, 2004, pp. 8, 10, 55-56, 59-60

• Sharon, Moshe (2007). Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, Addendum. BRILL. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
• Sharon, 2007, p. 102

• Sharon, Moshe (2009). Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, G. Vol. 4. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-17085-5.
• not mentioned

• Sharon, Moshe (2013). Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, H-I. Vol. 5. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-25097-2.
• Sharon, 2013, p. 262

Name

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)

Difficult question. I would normally go for what "Local" sources called him, I see Moammar, Tawfiq (1990) calls him "Zahir Al Omar". Perhaps we should list *who* calls him *what*? Huldra (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to "Zahir al-Umar" which is used frequently. Here's a list of the sources in the article (13 for "Zahir al-Umar", 8 for Dahir al-Umar, 1 for "Zahir Al Omar", 2 for "Daher Omar", 1 for "Dhaher al-Omar", 1 for "Dhaher el-Omar").

• Ahmad Hasan Joudah (1987) uses "Zahir al-Umar"
• Moammar, Tawfiq (1990) calls him "Zahir Al Omar"
• Fouad Ajami (2012) calls him "Dahir al-Umar"
• Uzi Baram (2007) calls him "Zahir al-Umar"
• Jacob Barnai (Naomi Goldblum, editor) (1992) - "Dahir al-Umar"
• Beshara Doumani (1995) - "Zahir al-Umar"
• Michael Dumper (2007) - Dahir al-Umar
• Chad F Emmet (1995) - Dahir al-Umar
• Kais Firro (1992) - Zahir al-Umar
• William Harris (2012) - Zahir al-Umar
• Phillip K. Hitti (2004) - Zahir al-Umar
• David Kushner (1986) - Dahir al-Umar
• Matthias Lehman (2014) - Zahir al-Umar
• Nur Masalha (2014) - Dhaher al-Omar
• Charles E. Orser (1996) - Dahir al-Umar
• Thomas Phillipp (2013, 2015) - Zahir al-Umar
• Eugene Rogan (2012) - Zahir al-Umar
• Karl Sabbagh (2008) - Daher al-Omar
• Rodger Shanahan (2005) - Dahir al-Umar
• Moshe Sharon (1997,2004) - Zahir al-Umar
• Peter Sluglett (2014) - Zahir al-Umar
• Tobias George Smollet (1783) - Daher Omar
• Elias Srouji (2003) - Dhaher el-Omar
• Wheeler Thackston (1988) - Zahir al-Umar
• Volney (1788) - Daher Omar
• Stefan Winter (2010) - Zahir al-Umar
• Mahmoud Yazbak (1988) - Dahir al-Umar
• Enyclopedia Brittanica - Dahir al-Umar

• That is 11 with some variation of Dahir/Daher/Dhaher, and 14 for Zahir; and the great majority for "al-Umar" as surname. I think "Zahir al-Umar" is the probable winner, Huldra (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It should also be noted that the two most-cited sources (Thomas Philipp and Ahmad Hasan Joudah) use "Zahir al-Umar". --Al Ameer (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Ok, Zahir al-Umar already exists, though (as a redir to this page). So the Zahir al-Umar-page must first be deleted, before we can move this page there, Huldra (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• It would seem all of these variations should be made redirects to here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. Most of them are already redirects, but two on this list were not. I just made those two redirects. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zahir al-Umar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hi there, I'll take this one. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• "ʿUmar az-Zaydānī" Why accented transliteration only for this name?
  • Removed the marks because they're unnecessary in the article body.
• His approximate birth date could be mentioned under early life.
  • Done.
• "Zahir killed a man in a fight in Tiberias." More on this? Circumstances?
  • Changed the wording a bit to clarify what happened, but the source doesn't give me much other than Zahir was involved in a brawl, killed a Tiberian man and his elder brother decided it was best to leave Tiberias thereafter.
• "Zahir married Sayyid Muhammad's daughte" Name?
• What was his mother's name?
  • I could not for the life of me find his mother's name or the names of any of his wives. It could be that the names are out there somewhere and I haven't found them, but more likely than not, the names were not recorded in the primary sources. A sign of the times back then I guess. For some reason, I did find his sister's name so it's possible I could find the names of the other women in his immediate family.
• "village of Bi'ina was besieged by forces dispatched by the governor of Sidon" Why?
  • Clarified this a bit. Source didn't say Bi'ina was besieged, but that Zahir "played a major role defending the village against the rapacious governor of Sidon ... His heroic defense of the village, his dramatic escape ..." That's all that is said about the incident. I don't know why it was being attacked, but since the author used "rapacious", I assume that the governor was either extorting the residents for more money, attempt to collect high taxes from them, or maybe punishing the village for failing to pay sums to the governor. These are only my assumptions though.
• A lot of photos are clustered in the beginning of the article, perhaps they could be spread out a bit more evenly, for example some in empty sections such as "politics"?
  • Moved a few of them around. Hope it's better now. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• "and Maghrebi forces" These are not mentioned before, how did hew get them? I see they are explained further down, but maybe it would make more chronological sense to list them before? Maybe near "and eventually maintained a brigade of 200 horsemen from his clan."
• "Jiddin had been ruled by Ahmad al-Husayn" From the clan of his wife?
  • No, his wife's clan was the al-Husayni, not al-Husayn. In any case, I think I may have made a mistake linking his wife's family to the al-Husayni clan of Jerusalem. I'll check the source again. "Al-Husayni" was a widely used name by Arab families who claimed descent from the prophet Muhammad through Husayn ibn Ali. As for Jiddin's sheikh, "al-Husayn" was most likely his father's name rather than the name of his clan or tribe. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• "Yaqub was executed not long after" Why?
  • Hate to say it again, but the source simply does not say why. I couldn't find anything about Yaqub (or Ya'qub) Agha in searches, but that's probably because this is the Arabic transliteration of his name instead of the Turkish, which is probably more commonly used by sources. You wouldn't happen to know the Turkish transliteration of Yaqub, would you? I'll keep trying to find it anyway.

Seems to be Yakup: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakup FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, still haven't found anything on the man yet in google books, but will see if the original source, Thomas Philipp's book, mentions him again or at least mentions the source he used for this. Might be able to access it, but I'm not counting on it. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Abu al-Dhahab is also spelled Dahab in the article, should be consistent.
  • Done.
• "Meanwhile, conflict between Zahir and his sons had reignited" There doesn't seem to be mention of conflict between them before this point?
  • I might need a day or two to decide how I want to tackle this point. I wanted to keep a separate section devoted to the conflicts he had with his sons, because they were a notable part of his career, but I might have to merge the info into the main "Rule" section in a chronological order.
    • I have now restructured the article by merging most of the material in the "Intra-family rivalry" section to the "Ruler of Acre" section. The remainder of the "Intra-family rivalry" section was merged into the "Family" section. It's much better this way. Lot of blanks have now been filled in the article's chronology. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• There is a lot of overlinking to the same articles, it can be checked with the script here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ucucha/duplinks
• There is a lot of duplicate info about his forces under Administration, not sure how to handle this.
  • When you say duplicate info, do you mean it's duplicated in the same section or elsewhere in the article?

Different sections, the stuff about his cavalry and the Maghrebis is almost the same as that under "Consolidation of power in Galilee." FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried to remove some redundancy in the "Consolidation" section because I prefer that the details of his military forces be mentioned in the "Administration" section. At the same time, for the reader's sake, some basic context about his military forces are mentioned throughout the article in a chronological order. Check these revisions I made and let me know if they were sufficient enough: [4], [5], [6]. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Many articles are not linked in their first mention, only further down the article, perhaps something to look into.
  • I finished (or at least I hope I did) taking care of the problems with overlinking and not linking the first mention.
• "during the mid-18th century,[1] during the Ottoman era." Two "during" becomes a bit repetitive.
  • Done.
• In the intro you say he founded Haifa, yet in the article you say "In 1757 he took control of the Mediterranean port cities Haifa" So it already existed?
  • He founded modern Haifa. Haifa had existed prior as a small port village, but Zahir had that village demolished, and transferred the population to the new town he founded and fortified 3km to the southeast. This is recognized as the establishment of modern Haifa. I just clarified in the article. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Article has 4 red links.--Human3015^TALK  07:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Removed the redlinks in the article body for now. Will create articles for them in the future. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:31, 12 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)

• It all looks good to me, will certainly pass GA. The rest of the issues might be good to look out for in case of FAC. Nice work! FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Highly problematic article because, contra to the rules of GA, it presents a highly POV narrative drawn from the work of nationalist authors, several of whom are not historians. This is an example of WP:PLAGUE; not the sort of thing that should be at GA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

First, this review is over, so this is not the place to complain. Second, if you have issues with the sources, you need to point out which sources and what passages of the sources that are apparently "POV". Unspecific hand-waving won't get us anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"northern Palestine", "Ottoman era" "autonomous"

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)

Palestine is the widely recognized term for the region and in any case I didn't pull the term out of my ass, the vast majority of sources use "northern Palestine" to describe the area Zahir ruled. As you can see in above discussions, before I began editing the article extensively, I did not support the usage of "northern Palestine" (I supported using "Galilee"), but after having studied the subject extensively "northern Palestine" is both a more apt description and one that is supported by the sources. It wasn't just the Galilee, it was also Haifa, the Jezreel Valley, and the coast until Tantura. In the last years of his rule, his domain extended as far as Gaza and as far north as the approaches of Beirut, but for most of his reign, his de facto rule consisted of northern Palestine. The Galilee was his home and the core of his domain as the lead makes clear: "For much of his reign, starting in the 1730s, his domain mainly consisted of the Galilee with Tiberias, Arraba, Nazareth, and Deir Hanna serving as successive headquarters, before he made Acre his seat of power in 1746"

I don't know why you find "reign", "autonomous" or "domain" extremely odd. The terms are used widely by the sources and are not controversial. And contrary to your comment above, the references used are not "nationalist sources" by any means. You obviously have not read the article or taken a good look at the sources. The two most widely used sources in the article are Thomas Philipp and Ahmad Hasan Joudah. The former is an extremely valuable historian for Middle Eastern history and Joudah's book on Zahir is the most detailed and thoroughly sourced work I've yet to see on Zahir not to mention one that has been cited frequently by other RS works on Zahir al-Umar including Philipp. The only source I can't vouch for is Moammar Tawfiq (who is cited to four times) because I don't have access to his book and know nothing about him.

It would be nice if your criticism would be more constructive instead of throwing around slanderous accusations that had hold no merit such as your baseless criticism of the sources which you clearly have not examined, calling the article an example of the nationalist plague on Wikipedia and describing it as "presenting a highly POV narrative" without explanation. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hero

@Al Ameer son: the quote comes from here. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Thanks, I'll revise the citation. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Philipp map

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)

Bani Saqr

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)

@Deborahjay: 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)

short description "ruler of Palestine"

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)

"Palestine" the word would not have been used at that time.

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)

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)

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)

Correct in every respect. Zero^talk 05:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Citadel of Tiberias

@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)

@Arminden: Found it. "The principle deviation made by the later walls is on the north, where they extended up to a new four-towered citadel built by Ḍāhir's son Sulaybī on high ground to the northwest.", from Pringle, Denys (1998) The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus: Volume 2, L-Z, p. 353. Pringle does not mention the year of construction, but it's possible the sources he cites do provide it. Except for the year, we have enough to modify the text in the article to credit Salibi for the citadel. Al Ameer (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"The two-story square citadel with its four-round towers, located at the northeastern section of the fortifications, remains extant. Both stories of the citadel are characterized by three rows of cross vaults.{{sfn|Petersen|2001|p=304}}

But you answered before I finished writing the question :)) Anyway, for others to follow our exchange:

The blue cultural heritage plaque shown on Google Maps indicates "Chulaybee son of Daher El-Omar" as the builder of "the fortress" and the year as 1745, so half a decade after the city walls. What does Petersen say? Google Books doesn't show the relevant snippet. It would still be under Zahir's rule, but the son should also be mentioned, and the transliteration must be checked too if possible. I guess "Salibi az-Zahir (also spelled Sulaybi or Celebi)" is meant, see the wikiwand entry; NB: Sulaybi + Celebi combined make Chulaybee a reasonably good transliteration, as implausible as it looked at first sight. Currently Google Maps has it as "Crusader Castle", LOL.

Also: "at the northeastern section of the fortifications"? How does Petersen formulate it? Al Ameer son, hi, I see you added this information; maybe Petersen has a plan, too? Burckhardt's is probably drawn from memory and quite approximate. It shows an appendix-like extension of the city walls, but to the NW, which cannot be right. The citadel is further up the hill from the NE area, but there are indeed some ruins of a wall and tower between it and the lake shore, so the citadel might indeed have been inside the city walls, either from Zahir's time or later (citadels by definition are not). Cheers, Arminden (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Al Ameer son: The sub-sub-sections might have been an overkill, but placing the city walls and the citadel/saraya in the same paragraph was misleading, and at least until things got clarified, the separation helped to keep apart what didn't really belong together. Maybe the Tiberias article would be the right place to go back to it, perhaps by creating a bulleted list of highlights.

Judging by the Pringle quote, the citadel is indeed further inland (W) than I thought. My mistake, I didn't fully trust Burckhardt at my own peril. Those C19 explorers were amazing. Arminden (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: No issue with separating into different paragraphs, just with the excess subsections. I agree information about the city's walls and fortifications ought to be fleshed out at Tiberias. In the meantime, modified the text to credit Salibi for the citadel, but still need a source for the 1745 date. Al Ameer (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: We're on the same page. Why do you prefer Salibi over Sulaybi? Are these both Arabic names? Do you think Celebi was just an Ottoman Turkisation of his name? Ignore if too pedantic. Arminden (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Sulaybi is likely based on the Arabic diminutive form... AnonMoos (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure which transliteration is more true to his actual name, but 'Salibi' seems the more common based on the sources I've read. 'Salibi' is used by Joudah and Philipp, the two most referenced authors for this article, though Philipp also has 'Celebi' in parentheses. Petersen and Crecelius use 'Salibi' as well, while I've only seen 'Sulaybi' in Pringle's book.

To AnonMoos, you are probably right: I had thought 'Sulaybi' was the more proper transliteration and 'Salibi' a colloquial version, but remembered from personal experience that this is not the case (the colloquial of 'Sulaybi' is 'Sleibi') Al Ameer (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Portraits (revisited)

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)

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. Zero^talk 02:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zero0000: 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)