Talk:Bedoon

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bedoon (ethnicity). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dcaf.ch/content/download/33690/522597/version/1/file/ev_geneva_04071113_Alnajjar.pdf

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, this is Kyron Planetary Service. The al Najjar source was provided in a neocon militarisation context, cash for comment kind of thing, which is inappropriate for analysis of an ethnic group. The article is not available at the link (this page is neglected), but perhaps once it was... in any case, this analysis would have been political science constructivism, not a real comment about real people (I know the author personally). I appreciate the Bedoun are an ethnic group, but the information needs to fit the field. Sorry, I am unable to deconstruct """""{{{{)))) stuff at this time. KyronPlanteryService (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Contradictory text

To wit: "Although many Bidoon are genuinely stateless, there is no evidence that some Bidoon are foreign nationals hiding their true nationalities. Kuwait recently discovered the true nationalities of 6,000 Bedoon, most of whom were Saudi citizens."

The two clauses of the first sentence contradict each other; if there is no evidence any Bidoon are foreign nationals, and they're not citizens of the nation in which they reside, then they're _all_ stateless. And the second sentence contradicts the second clause of the first as well.

Can someone clear this up? Are these people stateless or not? And are there significant numbers of foreign nationals posing as Bidoon? Laodah 02:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hiya, that should have done it. Let me know! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, this is Kyron Planetary Service, Q: Why would nationals of other states pretend to be a population that is currently around 1/3 of its size or smaller, as at 1985? The population reduction alone is indicative of genocide, regardless of the other human rights violations described. No, government has never disclosed any plausible evidence there is a collection of Bedouns of any size, who hold nationalities in other states. The Ministry of Interior's Central Apparatus enforces fraudulent nationality labels on the Bedoun, in an attempt to cover up the fact that the Bedoun are Kuwaiti Bedouins (formerly regarded as 'informal' citizens by the state prior to 1986). This occurs because the state is attempting to eradicate the group. I am an expert on the Bedoun. Now this page is less active with trolls, I am happy to assist you to correct the page. The group are stateless, indigenous Bedouins of the Kuwaiti northern tribes (who are "officially" politically recognized tribes). Their family members are Bedouin citizens of Kuwait.KyronPlanteryService (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Incomprehensible statement with seeming missing part.

At one point the article says "Documented Bidoon are at risk of persecution or breach of human rights;[11] undocumented Bidoon are." This seems like part of the sentence was deleted by someone in a haphazard way that didn't ensure the remaining part made sense without it. Rather, after making a statement about documented Bidoon, and it seems to then start to contrast that with undocumented ones but is then cut off mid sentence. Whatever one has to say about this subject, this sentence clearly should not be left as is.--108.86.122.209 (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Qatar

If you think that its not acceptable, how about this: You learn to explain why its not acceptable and point me in the right direction? Or you can find a better source. 175.103.25.37 (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)