User talk:Mengde

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! alphaChimp ^laudare 23:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mulayda[edit]

A tag has been placed on Mulayda, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — coel acan — 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Your edit summary on House of Al Sabah is juvenile and insulting. I asked you a question on the article talk page on Oct 13 and you still haven't answered the question. Yet you edit the article asking me to explain myself. This is going to be done by the book from now on. You are going to have to find a verifiable published source that backs up your claim that royal is insulting. The fact that Britannica uses the word ruling does not mean that royal is insulting. Bhimaji (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have a lot to answer for. My edits are fine I think, it's you who insists on continuing editing the page when it's been :proven by the several sources I have provided that Royal is not appropriate [1] :(or as appropriate as ruling).

Grow up please. You're disputing the input of academics, encyclopedia's and the input of the subject itself (the Amiri Diwan). How :do you justify Royal? becuase you've come up with your own little theory on how it's suitable? I am sorry but that's not valid... :for one your

theories in tying Tzars with kings or w.e. idea you bring up to tie the two isn't peer reviewed or anything, it's basically a word :association game which you're hoping would validate something which in teh end, no matter what ideas you bring up, is not sanctioned :by academics, those specialized in the field at least,and their writings. Hence Mike Herb and Britianica.

Now you're choosing to ignore all of this and insist on a word association game. That's a pretty absurd way to establish something; :by just ignoring everything else and sticking to some spurious line of reason that would satisfy yourself. Unless you reconcile why :Britanica, Mike Herb and the Amiri Diwan refuse to call the Al Sabah Royal, I ask you to stop editing the page. (Mengde (talk))

Oh and get a life man... seriously, how much time do you spend on here?

Is English your native language? Britannica *refused* to use the word Royal? You mean, somebody asked them to, and they said no? Or do you merely mean they *chose* not to?

I repeat my request for citable sources for your claim that Royal is incorrect. You can read about WP:V policies if you wish. Bhimaji (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, why wouldn't Britannica do what you're doing by applying Euro-centric terms on all other cultures and civilizations? Answer is because it is peer reviewed, by academics such as Mike Herb, who reject Royal and choose ruling. As for the verifiability page you linked, I suggest you go through it. It talks about providing reliable sources in the very intro; going back to our sources, I find you using questionable sources like editor-in-chiefs with typos and Google hit counts. I do think Britannica and Mike Herb are more reliable than google hit counts and editors with typing issues. Flail a little harder. (Mengde (talk))

Unfortunately, when speaking in English, the words are often Euro-centric. Given that the development of English was Euro-centric, I don't know how to fix that other than speaking in a different language. Türkçe biliyor musunuz?

Regarding sourcing:

Read the rest of the page. You have not provided a citable source. You need to find a published source.
Britannica does not say that royal is wrong.
I only brought up Google hit counts because you claimed ridiculous things like, nobody in Kuwait would use Royal. Google hit counts do not prove that terminology is correct, I agree. I never claimed that.

The only way this discussion will move forward is if you can find a verifiable and published source that backs you up. Please try to do that. Bhimaji (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Of course I provided scholarly sources, it's you who's sources are iffy. As a matter of fact the scholarly sources came to us right in the discussion page and explicitly told you ruling not Royal - [2] that's right, you're contesting the input of an expert on the ruling families of the Arab gulf. I also referenced Peter Liendhardt's book, Sheikhdoms of Eastern Arabia. How audacious and crude of you, you dare ask for citable sources when you're the one with none? Lol, unless you're counting the editors that can't type as a citable source. It's not by the way.

I am glad you find google hit counts proves nothing expect what random people with an internet connection and a keyboard can say. Buddy you're the one who needs citable sources to back up Royal, not me - seriously, show me some citable sources to back up Royal that would be considered more valid than Britanica and Mike Herb. Don't give me narcissistic kids calling themselves Royal when they have no idea what the literature on them says, and don't give me editors that can't spell. Give me another peter liendhardt and Mike Herb (another expert on the ruling families) who would call the Al Sabah Royal not ruling. (Mengde (talk))

Liendhardt didn't say that royal was wrong. He said that calling them representatives of god was wrong. Since neither you nor I are calling them godly, we are in complete agreement. I found Liendhardt's comments to be enlightening, especially on the issue of ceremonial emblems - places such as Amiri Diwan are so fancy that I hadn't actually noticed the lack of symbolism.

Did you read the WP policy page? I'm asking you to provide a published source that says that "royal" is wrong. You have yet to provide a published citation. Surely somebody with your academic background understands citations?

I'm sorry that you find a request to follow Wikipedia policy "audacious and crude". I don't set policy. Bhimaji (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here. Whether there is or isn't academic material on a subject dedicated to appropriating names - specifically whether the Al Sabah is Royal or ruling is not the point. The point is that these academics have made their choice. They had in front of them a selection of titles and honorifics, out that selection they kept using ruling. When these academics continue to use ruling, and to actually have one of them come out to reject royal for ruling is of course sufficient evidence that royal is not appropriate. The citable sources I provided all use ruling, that is my evidence.

I now ask you for your citable evidence that Royal is the appropriate term for the Al Sabah, not ruling as my above sources deem correct.(Mengde (talk))

OK. Is a book cited by Britannica in its article on Kuwait sufficient? Britannica Online, Kuwait History, second book listed:

"Oil monarchies: domestic and security challenges in the Arab Gulf states By F. Gregory Gause"

http://books.google.com/books?id=emlbeh-24ogC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Oil+Monarchies:+Domestic+and+Security+Challenges+in+the+Arab+Gulf+States&lr=&ei=UrjuSpbGDpiSlQTq_I2ODA&client=safari#v=onepage&q=royal&f=false

Page 100: "In Kuwait worries about monopolizing of state finances by royal family members..."

Here are more scholarly works using royal:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FDJmjUUR9CUC&lpg=PA9&dq=kuwait%20royal%20family%20history&client=safari&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q=kuwait%20royal%20family%20history&f=false

Casey is a professor at Graceland University

http://books.google.com/books?id=YZ0p8qoDDnMC&lpg=PA11&dq=kuwait%20royal%20family%20history&client=safari&pg=PA123#v=onepage&q=royal&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jhqgg3rCHLMC&pg=PA476&dq=kuwait+royal+family+history&ei=oYvuSvXxCpqIlQSj66T9Cw&client=safari#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Michael Knights has a PhD from King's College, London.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yDzfAAAAMAAJ&q=kuwaiti+royal+family&dq=kuwaiti+royal+family&ei=GI_uSqOAKqi6lASJ2NHrCw&client=safari

Anthony Cordesman is a former Professor of National Security Studies at Georgetown University and fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian Institution and currently holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fM8UAQAAIAAJ&q=kuwaiti+royal+family&dq=kuwaiti+royal+family&lr=&ei=qI_uSsLYNoWIkgTJ9Z2yDA&client=safari

http://books.google.com/books?id=9BczB3Die_gC&lpg=PA126&dq=kuwaiti%20royal%20family&lr=&client=safari&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=AmSIOJ5ekIoC&lpg=PA259&dq=kuwaiti%20royal%20family&lr=&client=safari&pg=PA259#v=onepage&q=kuwaiti%20royal%20family&f=false

Hooshang Amirahmadi holds a Ph.D. in planning and international development from Cornell University and is a professor of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Professor Amirahmadi has served as director of the University's Center for Middle Eastern Studies, as chair and graduate director of his department at the Bloustein School.

All these people think that Royal is acceptable. Seems pretty clear that many people who know about this topic have chosen royal. Bhimaji (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gause was actually a visiting professor at my university, I took a course with him on Arab Politics last Spring. Believe it or not I asked him about using ruling or royal to refer to the Al Sabah and he told me "sometimes we use this, sometimes we use that." I had a long discussion with him about that... he really was indifferent, and I can understand why. But anyway, his indifference meant that he uses the two terms and doesn't necessarily reject one for the other. And sure enough, here's a couple of publications for him where he doesn't use Royal once to refer to the Al Sabah, but ruling all the way through http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2003/05middleeast_f%20%20gregory%20gause%20%20iii/gause20030430.pdf http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters/SAF_Item_Of_Interest_Gause_Complete.pdf

Same goes for Casey, just switch royal with ruling and you get instant hits (note the hits for ruling are more than twice that of Royal for Casey... just for the record, academic hit counts actually mean something). http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YZ0p8qoDDnMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Michael+Casey+Kuwait+Ruling+Family&ots=I8Qwx3ssqQ&sig=PZFDTkiP1rkXm0754GxqwrEa9qc#v=onepage&q=ruling&f=false

As for the first link you provided for Cordesmon, I am afraid I don't see the word Royal in those little strips... though when i type in ruling, I get to see the words. Care to explain this? http://books.google.com/books?lr=&ei=qI_uSsLYNoWIkgTJ9Z2yDA&client=safari&id=fM8UAQAAIAAJ&dq=kuwaiti+royal+family&q=kuwaiti+ruling+family#search_anchor

As for Cordesmon's second link, please note that Royal is used only once for the Al Sabah at the very bottom of some reference, while if you type in ruling you get consecutive hits talking about the Al Sabah. http://books.google.com/books?id=9BczB3Die_gC&lpg=PA126&dq=kuwaiti%20royal%20family&lr=&client=safari&pg=PP1#v=snippet&q=ruling&f=false

Finally for Hooshang and Knights, I am a bit hesitant in regards to the extent of their expertise on the topic - one is a military expert while the other has a PhD in Planning and PP, when compared to the input Gause, Crystal and Herb for example, I would say their input on such a subject of appropriating titles is not for their area to be concerned with.

In any case, never mind the general direction in which academics seem to go with the subject, I say Britannica knows best - unless you have something against Britannica.(Mengde (talk))

Google Book searching in Cordesmon seems inconsistent. I found a hit with "Sabah Royal":

"There are many reasons to criticize the leadership that the Kuwaiti royal family has shown since the war" - Page 625.

A search for "royal" alone does not find page 625.

What this whole time-wasting exercise has proven is that a number of your claims are incorrect:

"The Al-Sabah are not referred to as the Royal Family"

False. Some experts in the field do refer to them as the royal family.

You claim that using the term "royal family" is insulting. Gause obviously disagrees with you - he's quite willing to refer to the Al Sabah family as a royal family.

Let's talk about Britannica again, since you think they know best:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1254565/Sheikh-Saad-al-Abdullah-al-Salim-al-Sabah

"Kuwaiti royal who as a member of the ruling Sabah family, served..."

What was that? They used the term "royal" to refer to the former Emir?

You need to accept that academics with more knowledge than you think that royal is acceptable for the Al-Sabah family. Bhimaji (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still get more hit counts from Cordesmon for ruling family... considering we're debating which term is more appropriate, having you reference a link that employs royal once, and ruling X times isn't much of a good strategy to help support your argument that Royal is valid.

Anyways, actually my claims stand as I viewed the use of the term Royal, as Mike Herb did, to be unfounded when talking about the Al Sabah in Arabic; the reason is because "al hakimah" = ruling and royal has no equal in Arabic. So both myself and Herb, and all the other academics that employ ruling for the Al Sabah do so on basis of accuracy.

As for Gause, he does not disagree with me as much as he doesn't care about the subject. Actually now that you mention it, when i brought up the issue of Royalty and it not having a translation in Arabic, but ruling and it having one in Arabic, he actually agreed that ruling is the more accurate term for use. His line of argument however was that to his students, whether he used ruling or royal wasn't an issue; what mattered to him was to establish that this family ruled Kuwait.

This brings up an interesting point. We obviously see considerable backing for ruling over Royal for the Al Sabah, and some Academics actually came out to oppose Royal for ruling. Can you find one that is doing the opposite i.e. back Royal over ruling? Because what this "time wasting exercise" really did do is show that some academics, like Gause, just don't care about the term to employ.

As for Britannica, stop trying so hard... a reference isn't as good as the actual explanation of the word. The entry for Al Sabah gets you ruling family not Royal; whether they turn out as royal in some reference for another entry doesn't make the actual entry we're concerned with any less valid. (Mengde (talk)) ________________________

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mengde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Is there a chance for me to be unblocked?

Decline reason:

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied, we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details, there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.

If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
Try to edit the Sandbox.
If you are able to edit the sandbox, you are not blocked from editing. Either the autoblock on your IP address has already expired, or you weren't blocked in the first place. Either way, you can resume editing.
If you are still blocked, follow the directions below:
1. Copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "Unblock request" section.
2. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page, and click save.
  If you cannot edit your own talk page, use the Unblock Ticket Request System to make your request.

Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.