Talk:Nabataeans of Iraq

Original article restored after rewrite: which one is better?
This article was created by User:FPP on 18 August 2020. On 1 June 2022 I replaced what in my view was then still a very poorly sourced and unfocused article with a reliable stub, expanding it in the following days to what I believe to be a much clearer text cited to top-quality sources. Today, FPP came back to this article and without explanation more or less restored the revision before I rewrote the thing, which itself isn't too different from their original 2020 article.

To me it's obvious that the rewrite, even though far from ideal, is still vastly superior to the revision restored by FPP, even if only because of the nature of the sources used: compare this revision (the rewrite, last revision before today) to the current revision (the restored original article).

However, since it is to be expected that both FPP and me will prefer their own version of the article, it would be helpful to get some external input on this. I'm pinging the non-gnome users who edited this page, as well as some other editors with a lot of experience in this topic area:, , , , , , , , and , what do you think? Do you prefer the rewritten article or the restored original article? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your rewritten version is by far superior, it's not even debatable imo. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am creator of this article, and you mess with this article without talking with me
 * I am get original sources from most famous medieval historians like Al-Masudi and Said al-Andalusi. But it seem you think yourself know more than them
 * You remove sections in article and you remove the famous hadith of Caliph Umar about Nabataeans and many other things only to fit your narrative --FPP (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating the article, but please note that Wikipedia content that one contributed is not one's property. So your point that since you created it, others don't have a right to improve it without your permission is baseless and anti-Wikipedia. You version of the article was based on primary sources, as you yourself are saying, and some very non-RS websites, partisan (with expressions like "great civilizations", "highly educated people"), had poor grammar, and was MOS non-compliant. Apaugasma's version is clearly better in that it is based on RS, is neutral in tone, has better prose, and is more thorough in coverage of the subject, although it too is MOS non-compliant. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seem you didnt bother yourself to read the full context
 * Nabataeans they were mentioned by several historians like Al-Masudi, Ibn Khaldun and Said al-Andalusi as descendants of great civilizations like Babylonia and that they are highly educated people of their time.
 * Its not me who said this, but its those historians and I gave you source
 * I am also mentioned about bad things about the Nabateans, such as the hadith of Caliph Omar, which you deleted
 * There is no glorification in the article you wrote as you claim FPP (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , nobody WP:OWNs articles on Wikipedia, and nobody has to ask permission to edit anything. If you disagree with an edit, or a series of edits, you can revert them, but you have to explain why these edits are not an improvement according to Wikipedia's policies. Not liking something is not enough. From what I can see, the version you reverted was a well-written article that used only high-quality WP:RS, whereas your version, unfortunately, is written in poor English and does not use good-quality sources. Original sources like al-Masudi are, in the nature of things, not WP:RS, as they are primary sources. In an encyclopedia, we strive to use modern, scholarly sources, that use the primary sources and apply critical, scientific methods on them. It is exactly because neither  nor myself nor anyone thinks they know more, that Wikipedia editors have to restrict ourselves to WP:RS: we are obliged to rely on the analysis of modern, trained historians, not on our own arbitrary selections from or interpretation of primary material. Constantine   ✍  19:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Its neither me or you is owner of the article
 * But you have atleast to open talking page and mention what things should be improve this article
 * second things if old historians that you dont like such as Al Masoudi and didnt talk about Nabataeans you and the modern historians would never heard about them
 * So the primary sources is their books not modern historians
 * and neither of you answer to my questions but you are only defend Apaugasma
 * why sections of this article should removed?
 * why Hadith of Caliph Umar removed? FPP (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe Apaugasma did an excellent job of bringing the article up to the standards of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Ethnicity related articles on Wikipedia often have serious problems with original research due to over-reliance on primary sources, low quality sources/citations, etc, which can lead to the article giving a skewed perspective of what the bulk of scholarship actually has to say about a given topic. Without casting aspersions toward anyone here.
 * FPP has mentioned their concern for the removal of content, but that alone doesn't justify removing the very well-sourced and balanced content that Apaugasma added. I believe Apaugasma's edits should be restored, and if there is a good reason to mention other sources (like Caliph Umar), reliable secondary sources for that content can surely be found, if it is truly relevant content. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You all came to defend what your friend did by different versions
 * My problem with Apaugasma that he didnt believe in old historians sources, and we should only mention what modern historians said and throw every work written by ancient historians to garbage
 * He also remove what Ali Al-Wardi a famous modern Iraqi historian and sociologist
 * This lead me to question that Apaugasma problem is with middle eastern and arab historians sources but not with old historians only. You only cite what modern western historians
 * Apaugasma didnt mention his country, I am know history of my country more than him and I dont need modern western historians to told me what my history
 * And when I read article about Nabataeans of Iraq, I need to know everything which was told about them
 * so what Caliph Umar said is important because this reflect his aspect about them FPP (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with e.g. al-Masudi is not that he is Middle Eastern or Arab; he is, for his time, an excellent historian. But modern historians rely not only on al-Masudi, but on all historians who wrote about the Nabataeans, they also have access to other historians, archaeology, epigraphic sources, and analytical methods that al-Masudi simply lacked. Historical science has advanced since the middle ages, and that is not a slight on al-Masudi, it is simply the nature of things. You are mistaken if you think of this as an 'us versus them' issue. It is an issue of following Wikipedia's requirement for the use of reliable sources (which means modern peer-reviewed scholars, not necessarily Western ones) over primary sources, and nothing more than that. Constantine  ✍  21:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What the problem if you mention both old and modern historians
 * those modern historians where they get their information about Nabataeans
 * arnt from old historians FPP (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not with Apaugasma. The problem is that you either didn't care to read Wikipedia policies that Cplakidas and I mentioned above or that you are disregarding them. Apart from those mentioned above, there is a policy on gaining on Consensus, which has gone against you. I am going to restore Apaugasma's version. If you want edit Wikipedia, you have to follow policies, they are not optional. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta)

This is your gang Consensus policy for anything not written by westerns

Next time you have to change name of Wikipedia to Westpedia to fit your narrative --FPP (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)