Talk:Q-D-Š

Lettering

per the following diff - [1]

Perhaps we should add a subsection with all the possible lettering and link to it from the introduction? Certainly this is encyclopedic content. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We can eventually add a table with all the alphabets and their transliterations. No need to clutter up the lead and feed the lkelihood of edit wars. Besides which, the ultimate root remains unknown and is neither Hebrew nor Arabic. Tiamut^talk 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How about, you add the Arabic root next to the Hebrew one for now instead of deleting encyclopedic content? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. I moved it down into the body of the article and I added the Arabic name for al-Quds in there too. Please read more carefully. Tiamut^talk 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw it. Glad to see this point resolved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambig linkage

With all due respect to the thousands of places Muslims give the title Quds to, I fail to see how that is beneficial to the article. There is certainly a long list of similar attributes in Jewish culture that is far more relevant than a few militant groups calling themselves holy. To clarify my note here, I would not expect the article of Islam to be linked with all the terrorist groups that add the word to their name.
p.s. I'm open to an RfC on this though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you followed Nishidani here? No matter.

I was very much enjoying editing this article, far away from the I-P conflict stuff. Please, it's a link in the see also section to a page which discusses the various pages that contain the words "Quds" which is a direct derivation from the Q-D-S Semitic root. Let's try not to let any biases we may hold against Muslims influence our editing choices here, okay? Tiamut^talk 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Tiamut,

A personal attack is not an explanation to why you'd assume adding a 'see also' link to a few militants (al-Aqsa brigades and the like) who call themselves 'holy'. I gave an example of a similar mislinking option but I don't see addressing the example or the raised concern.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained it a number of times. This article is about the Semitic root Q-D-S and words that derive from it. Al-Quds is one of those words. It is however, a word that is used by many different people. The Al-Quds (disambiguation) page, points to some examples of its everyday use today. Plus, you keep characterizing the contents of that page in a way that misrepresents it. Of the seven articles linked there, only three deal with militant groups; the others reference a university, the Palestinian stock exchange, a newspaper, etc. Please stop letting your bias interfere with your editing choices here and give WP:BATTLEa good re-read. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 21:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how "holy" militant groups and a "holy" propaganda newspaper are suddenly important for inclusion. This is not a link to a 'word' which derives it's root from Q-D-S, but rather an irrelevant (more than 50%) link to extremists who call themselves "holy" despite some clearly unholy activities. I can see a link from these articles to Q-D-S, but the opposite direction link seems silly. Maybe if there was a list to words which use the root rather than a link to a few hate movements who consider their ideology holy. To further clarify this perspective, I'd note that similar groups which use "Islam" or "Allah" in their name are not listed on the relevant articles, and they certainly shouldn't be listed. Please address this point as it's central to my argument and I've repeated it more than once already.

p.s. please comment on content, not on alleged editorial bias. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Offtopic

I concur with Tiamut. The remark

'There is certainly a long list of similar attributes in Jewish culture that is far more relevant than a few militant groups calling themselves holy.'

appears to mean that Jewish holiness is more relevant to Q-D-S than 'thousand of places Muslims give the title of Q-D-S to' (the latter remark then glossed by 'a few militant groups calling themselves holy'). This is an ethnocentric put-down, once more, Jaakobou, and insinuates that there is a rough equivalence of Muslim claims to holiness and militancy. Please refrain from politicizing an interesting article which, as written so far, shows the common roots of the 'holy' in all Semitic cultures, and does not equivocate with a partisan'holier than thou' tone with regard to any one of the dozen cultures which are heir to this concept.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani,

I appreciate your notes on cultural sensitivity but my removal of links to militant groups is actually helping de-politicize the article rather than the opposite. I'd have to also note that Jewish usage of the term 'Kadosh'/'Kidush'/etc. is far more proper than a list of extreme guerrilla militants who like to assign an air of holiness to their endeavors.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, an article about the Semitic root Q-D-S, might benefit having a link to an article on all the different meanings and applications of the Arabic word al-Quds (disambiguation) which is derived from it. That's encyclopedic. Your soapboxing is not. Tiamut^talk 20:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I broke this section because we were discussing the issues above Nishidani's notes. If this is a problem, we can start another subheader maybe. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the sub-header is misleading. It makes it seem like this discussion was not part of the discussion above, when in fact, it preceded it. Do you mind not re-formatting the page in this fashion or reverting my removal of the inaccurate sub-heading? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking it would be best to start fresh on a new section. Currently, there are too many bias accusations which are irrelevant to the content discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Breaking down a tendentious argument

The issue: A link in the see also section to Al Quds (disambiguation)

Jaakobou’s arguments against linking:

• There is certainly a long list of similar attributes in Jewish culture that is far more relevant than a few militant groups calling themselves holy.
• This is not a link to a 'word' which derives it's root from Q-D-S, but rather an irrelevant (more than 50%) link to extremists who call themselves "holy" despite some clearly unholy activities.
• my removal of links to militant groups is actually helping de-politicize the article rather than the opposite. I'd have to also note that Jewish usage of the term 'Kadosh'/'Kidush'/etc. is far more proper than a list of extreme guerrilla militants who like to assign an air of holiness to their endeavors.

Tiamut’s arguments for linking:

• Please, it's a link in the see also section to a page which discusses the various pages that contain the words "Quds" which is a direct derivation from the Q-D-S Semitic root.
• ...an article about the Semitic root Q-D-S, might benefit having a link to an article on all the different meanings and applications of the Arabic word al-Quds (disambiguation) which is derived from it.
• The Al-Quds (disambiguation) page, points to some examples of its everyday use today. Plus, you keep characterizing the contents of that page in a way that misrepresents it. Of the seven articles linked there, only three deal with militant groups; the others reference a university, the Palestinian stock exchange, a newspaper, etc.

I might also point out that Quds is written in Arabic as the three consonants Q-D-S, ie. al-Quds (al meaning "the") is not a derivation of the root. It is the root as used in Arabic and is therefore directly relevant to this page. Tiamut^talk 21:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)