Talk:Bedoon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism by AGRSO

Hello, OJOM and I have been working to make this page more substantial, NPOV, and a real source of information for anyone curious about the Bidoon. User AGRSO has deleted all of our work claiming "Government Propaganda." Seeing as NO GOVERNMENT sources were used, (purely UN and HRW NGOs,) I have reached the conclusion that this constitutes vandalism. If you go to the USER page of AGRSO, it seems she has been accused of similar behavior previously. Please help maintain and add to this page as a source for elucidating the state of the Bidoon in Kuwait. ALSO, if Government propaganda was used, it would not paint the Bidoon in such a manner as to garner support for them. This page is NPOV. Neutral, not for or against the Bidoon.

Greetings, this is Kyron Planetary Service. Your claims to be nuetral are not convincing, or you would be researching back to original sources, and discovering some of the errors on the page. Please use original sources, and if you want to keep referring to grey literature, demonstrate the chain of referencing those NGOs used when they took academic source material (usually without reference). Thanks:) KyronPlanteryService (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Spelling

Can we please standardize on the article title ("Bidoon") as the Wikipedia-standard spelling? I realize that different news organizations have differing standards for translating the Arabic word into European languages, and that this frequently results in different spellings. But when we write the main text of an article, as opposed to a quote, the standard spelling ought to be used. ElbonianFL (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Elbonian

I agree. I am a native Arabic speaker, and the transliteration of the word in arabic is best written as "Bidoon" SabahMAlSabah (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, this is Kyron Planetary Service. Editor 1) No, you cannot "standardize" the spelling, because you are not a dictionary, nor an expert on the Bedoun. Please argue your reasons with appropriate, authoritative texts (and not grey literature as two editor has emphasised they think, shows "nuetrality." Not convincing - use primary sources they are available on the internet. Editor 2) Being an Arabic speaker does not make you authoritative on the spelling, either. You need to tell us the sources of all the spellings first, then substantiate why you should be allowed to select "standard terms," when the world's only 2 scholarly experts on the topic don't have the gumption to be so presumptive. How about just leaving it alone until the Bedoun acquire sufficient social power to negotiate and chose their own spelling without being arrested for holding a "gathering" of more than 3 people? Welcome to Kuwait. The Bedoun speak Arabic and English too. KyronPlanteryService (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Merger

How about merging all three artciles: Bidun, Bedoun and Bidoon of Kuwait? Bidun is not well provided with inline citations, but seems to have the broadest reach, although it may be a little POV in places, e.g, Before 1990, the majority of bidun were Bedouin settlers from the northern Arabian Peninsula. and the 1920 date was not for registration, but was for "living there since" in the 1960 to 1965 (?) registration period. The Bidoon of Kuwait makes that same factual error, but does contain a number of useful external links. --Bejnar (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also we should merge in History of the bidoon in Kuwait. --Bejnar (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I note that MatthewVanitas merged the three articles together on 11 March 2011. However, the 1920 registration error mentioned above has been perpetuated. The language needs cleaning up. --Bejnar (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, this is Kyron Planetary Service. Are you referring to merging all 3 articles, or all 3 terms for the Bedoun?

• Hello? "BIDUN" is the last term you should choose - have you looked up the meaning of this term? Bare with me, 1) the Bedoun ARE Bedouin. They are Bedouins of the northern tribes of Kuwait - that's an ethnic classfication. 2) The claim at the beginning of the article, by Anh Nga Longva (1997 Walls build on sand) is a misappropriation of a statement in Human Rights Watch (1995) misleading readers to believe the Bedoun were not Bedouins. The statement in Human Rights Watch referred to language use, and the similar sound between "Bedouin" and "Bedoun." It was not a statement referring to the anthropological or sociological characteristics of the group, of which Longva (1997) was quite aware as an anthro. 3) Bidun is used by few scholars today. Why? They have looked up the meaning - it does not refer to Bedouins of the Arabian Gulf, but to African migrants in Morocco.KyronPlanteryService (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Requires Rewriting for Balance

Much of the language in this article is pejorative in tone, insinuating that the Bidoun/Biduns/bedoun (sic) are a 'problem'. There is also too much conjectural language for this to be considered a serious article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.136.114 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources seem to support the statement that the bedoun are a problem. The human rights documents indicate that the bedoun feel they have a problem, the Kuwaiti government's various statements seem to indicate that they have a problem. Thus there are problems on both sides. The article has had some rewriting, is there a particular example of improper tone still in the article? --Bejnar (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oreganoan has removed several negatives from the article, which seems to make the article less balanced, namely: children of bedoun are bedoun; Kuwait granted citizenship to less than 2000 bedoun families; the 1980 amnesty required recipients to identify themselves as illegal residents who claimed to have Kuwaiti relatives, rather than as Kuwaiti who had failed to register (or whose ancestors had failed to register). --Bejnar (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, this is Kyron Planetary Service. I am pleased you observed the article is perjorative in tone; this means it was likely written by "establishment" academics for the government of Kuwait and/or the Chamber of Commerce, who are members of the opposing ethnic group responsible for paying their intellectuals to invent the anti-Bedoun (ethnic cleansing, genocide) policies adopted by government. The remaining tone problem is that the article is simply incorrect, and implies the Bedoun hold nationality/citizenship in other states. I am happy to rewrite the article drawing on original sources, because I am the leading expert on the Bedoun. I am going to wait for activity before getting too enmeshed in my own sources, as poor-quality sources or lack of sources advocated by other editors, needs to be justified first.

Re: 'amnesty' on this comment above - ' required recipients to identify themselves as illegal residents who claimed to have Kuwaiti relatives, rather than as Kuwaiti who had failed to register (or whose ancestors had failed to register). --Bejnar (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC) The above statement is incorrect and can be scrapped - there was never any "amnesty" just alot of violence... The group are subject to ethnic cleansing and genocide at present. What the statement refers to is the administrative expulsion of 1986, which imposed "illegal resident" labelling to replace the identity previously stated in the Kuwait National Census, disclosing the Bedoun correctly as "Bedouin" and "Kuwaiti." Almost simultaneously, government introduced the erasure, whereby it replaced national identity as "Kuwaiti" with fraudulent nationality labels to obscure the group's expulsion from the National Census. This method is commonly used in ethnic cleansings prior to mass killings, disappearances, and deportations... (refer to Michael Mann, Damien Short or other specialists in mass violence) which happened 1991-1995 during and after the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, when the government of Kuwait ordered the ethnic cleansing with a little help from their friends. That's why the media black-out on the first Gulf War. KyronPlanteryService (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Gutted and made POV

This article is being gutted and made seriously non-NPOV by an IP editor. I am tempted to just revert his whole series of edits, but there may be some value there. --Bejnar (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose a rewriting of the article stressing NPOV. I have substantial information from the Arabic Wikipedia site found here: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86_%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AA SabahMAlSabah (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not read Arabic, but have checked the English references and made the article itself NPOV (or at least more so than it was before). Would be nice to have some references that cited Bidoon as well as government sources, though.

I am going to get some government sources. But they will inherently be non-NPOV since it would undermine current policy.

Greetings, this is Kyron Planetary Service. I am curious as to why you would "get some government sources" (where? how?) without ever checking what any primary academic sources whatsoever have said, while the government policy at present is a comprises administrative erasure and ethnic cleansing strictly speaking (yes, genocide was mentioned too)? This is a highly unconvincing strategy and seems to be unsigned after "al Sabah." The Bedoun are no longer a "social class" they are a sub-ethnic group of the northern tribes Bedouin of Kuwait, predominantly. These are the tribes of the Kuwaiti Emir and ruling family, the al Sabah, and their affiliate tribes. Think about it. Thank you. KyronPlanteryService (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

New additions

History, Origins, and Nomenclature.

I added some history so that the article is more robust. I feel like it was written (previously) for people who knew a lot about the subject. I am trying to frame the whole issue in the context that Kuwait is rich, its citizens enjoy unparalleled amenities, and that most people would love Kuwaiti citizenship because of that. Also, there are legitimate Kuwaiti Bidoon who have been suffering at the hands of the government because of the (majority?) of fake claims (from Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Levant.) SabahMAlSabah (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, this is Kyron Planetary Service. Al Sabah, you are now replicating government policy-speak in the comments. Everything in this section above is incorrect and inflammatory - provide your references and I can advise the problem with them depending on each one you have selected. KyronPlanteryService (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Kuwaiti Bedoon

Could someone update the article (I'm completely ignorant of the topic) to include a description of why the Army and Police forces are special for the Bedoon? Were they simply inclined to join those organizations? Did the government look for them? I'm missing something. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, this is Kyron Planetary Service. 1) Bedouin colonial desert patrol 2) British Protectorate forces 3) Arab League force 4) Kuwait military and police service. Service to the state = citizenship (see article 4.4, Kuwait Nationality Law, 1959). Service to the state to protect the Emir, because the Bedoun are from the northern tribes, the only ones who could be trusted to carry out such a task. They were unable to stave off the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, because their elite officers failed to give them orders, and later a government Minister ordered them to cease resistance during the occupation, shortly before over 125,000-150,000 Bedouns were ethnically cleansed by the home state.KyronPlanteryService (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)