Talk:Attil

File:Governate of Toulkarem.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Governate of Toulkarem.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414210538/http://www.un.org/unrwa/emergency/barrier/profiles/qalqilya.html to http://www.iaa-archives.org.il/zoom/zoom.aspx?folder_id=93&type_id=6&id=8373

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

jizya

Tombah, whats the source for that addition? nableezy - 16:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Nableezy; Tombah has misunderstood: all citizens in Nablus Sanjak was subject of a poll-tax in 1596, as a noted here, NOT jizya. User:Tombah: your editing can be damn sloppy at times; I'm tired of "cleaning up" after you (Like here: making a "Etymology" section, quoting only Zertal! Seriously??) Huldra (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Huldra My editing is sloppy as yours is neutral. Or perhaps you don't enjoy the content I'm adding. Really, this is the first time I've heard that. But let's keep it professional, instead of being hateful. You and I both should continue to act in good faith. Tombah (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Tombah you added " and jizya" [1] and sourced it to Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, when HA doesn't mention jizya for this place. That it was sourced to Zertal: how was anyone to know that? And yeah, IMO that is sloppy as heck. And an "etymology-section" which only cites 1 ref (when another ref is already in the article): that is cherry-picking. Huldra (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: Only mild irony there, escalating your comments to casting aspersions of 'hateful'-ness while calling for professionalism and good faith. How about pledging to cut down on the melodrama as a further addendum? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with the etymology, exactly? Where does it state that all information presented in the literature on a certain topic should be included in a single contribution? I found that in the book I just finished reading and added it to the article. What's so wrong about that? Tombah (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy, it's on Zertal's Manasseh Hill Survey, Vol. 3, p. 420. It's there, trust me. Huldra claims he misrepresented the original source he quoted, but somehow here she prefers to put the blame on me for believing a reliable source. Good faith and all.Tombah (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Again: how was I to know it was sourced to Zertal.....when you only sourced it to HA?! Sorry; I am not a mind-reader, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We must remember that Zertal's source Hütteroth and Abdulfattah (HA) is also a reliable source, so we are entitled to examine it ourselves and look for consistency with Zertal. As Huldra has noticed elsewhere, HA say that for the Nablus liwa item #34 is not only for jizya but also for another tax called 'adat rijaliyya levied on Muslims. Looking through the table for that liwa, we find that almost every locality has a value in item #34 except for localities with no population shown either (with one exception I noticed). Since it would completely ahistorical to infer that almost all localities had Christians or Jews despite them appearing very sparsely in the population counts, it must be that 'adat rijaliyya is the main source of #34. Further evidence can be given: (1) locality Jubayl on page 129 shows a count of both Muslims and Christians and #34 says "1200 and jizya 3240", so jizya is at least sometimes specifically indicated. (2) On page 74, HA explain the amount of this tax. In the nahiya that Attil lies in, the amount was 40 aqja for family heads and 20 aqja for bachelors. I went through the 14 localities on the same page (p126) as Attil and found that this formula gives the exact amount shown in #34 in 12 cases and differing by one character in the other two cases: Ajja shows 320 but the formula gives 520, Dayr Saraf shows 1200 but the formula gives 2200 (note that in both cases #34 is lower than the formula so the difference can't be explained by an additional tax being included). In conclusion, the amount in #34 for these villages is 'adat rijaliyya beyond reasonable doubt. Huldra's use of "poll tax" in the article is a good idea. Zero^talk 03:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Zero, and Tombah I wasnt doubting your good faith here, I asked but did not revert since you added the material without adding a source. But I did find it mind boggling that a village with 100% Muslims would have an entry for jizya, conversion was always an immediate release from that obligation. If the source of Zertal's work shows no jizya then I dont think we should be copying that error over here. nableezy - 05:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Since Zertal repeatedly cites jiziya for a locality without saying that any non-Muslims were there, I'm suspecting that he is using that name for any type of poll tax. I can't prove it, though. Zero^talk 11:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a bit wary of using Zertal second-hand materiel, (ie when quotes/uses other peaoples's stuff); I have been that ever since the Nisf Jubeil mess (see Talk:Nisf Jubeil). Ok, ok; I also messed up there -back in 2009, but then I am not a tenured professor of archaeology....In short: when Zertal cites something, I believe it prudent to always check the original source, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)