Jump to content

Talk:Bab al-Shams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename to Bab al Shams protest

[edit]

Or Bab al Shams tent protest or Bab al Shams camp protest or something equally relevant. Since it's not a real village and there do seem to be places that actually have that name. CarolMooreDC 19:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The place is named this way. If there might be confusion with other places, WP:DAB is the route. -DePiep (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


electronic intifada not an RS

[edit]

depiep - we've been through this dozens of times. EI is not RS for anything 'factual', and can only be used as a source for someone's own opinion posting it there. it is similar to jcpa, ngo-monitor, camera, and others. also, i think you have violated the 1RR and should do a self-revert in order to keeps things in the right order. thanks. Soosim (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 claim was contradicted by your own source. 250 is widely reported in RS (see my post below). Abuminah is a notable Palestinian-American journalist. In this case we have a wealth of RS agreeing on the 250 figure so whether we use him or not is not particularly important. Dlv999 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I self removed electronic intifadah as source for 1RR indeed. -DePiep (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for 'facts': that source and New York Times used the same tweets for their pages! Shall we throw out NYT as an RS too then? -DePiep (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More about NYT and facts [1]. -DePiep (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of protestors

[edit]

Recent edit changed number of protesters from 250 to 100. the 250 figure is widely supported by RS including the cited source given for the edit. [2] [3], [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ect. Dlv999 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The JPost link with it says: 250 protesters (daytime?) and 100 evicted (nighttime?). So 250 is OK. -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but only 100 were removed by the IDF (since the other 150 left earlier). Soosim (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an outpost

[edit]

IP intrioduced the word outpost [11], with in the es pointing to a parallel with Israeli outposts in the West Bank. I reverted with es mentioning non-symmetry with the Israeli usage. i was reverted. outpost in the West bank is used as a outpost from the Israelisettlements (colonies). That is: out as seen from Israel and its settlements. Since this is not an Israeli settlement in whatever sense, the word outpost does not apply. It is a Palestinian (tent) village on Palestinian land: nothing is "out". Therefor I claim that the word "outpost" is incorrect here. Most sources in already on the page note this difference. -DePiep (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using the language of the Associated Press article in Haaretz i.e. encampment. AP isn't connected to the occupying state and so it is less prone to the parochial linguistic idiosyncrasies of the Israeli media. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the IP and that is how it was described by AlJazeera(http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/2013111192445727430.html) , Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/us-palestinians-israel-tents-idUSBRE90B0FD20130112) the Times (http://world.time.com/2013/01/14/when-palestinians-use-settler-tactics-a-beleaguered-netanyahu-responds/) ynet (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4333020,00.html) , it has nothing to do with occupation but with the name it was described by the news sources reporting the events and the after match109.226.25.32 (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sean - al jazeera is pretty clear, too. ok? Soosim (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think it has everything to do with the language of the occupying state and I think a more careful reading of the sources shows that it's not a simple case of "that is how it was described by" the sources. For example
  • "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Saturday he was seeking court approval to remove an outpost of Palestinian tents pitched in an area of the occupied West Bank that Israel has earmarked for a new settlement." - the term is attributed to Netanyahu
  • "Israel's Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Palestinian outpost" - the term is attributed to the HCJ
  • "The encampment's name" - uses Reuter's narrative voice
  • "Hanan Ashrawi, a top Palestine Liberation Organization official, said Israeli forces had prevented her from entering the compound with other lawmakers. 'We will continue to try to enter the village of Bab el Shams, which to us means freedom,'" - uses both Reuter's voice and attribution to the PLO
  • "Palestinians at the Bab al-Shams campsite" - uses Time's narrative voice
  • "a cluster of tents" - Time's voice
  • "the camps are called “outposts,” a term Israelis use" - terminology attributed to Israelis
  • "the new campsite" - Time's voice
etc.
  • "tent 'outpost'" - in quotes
  • "Palestinians had set up the new "village"" - attributed to the Popular Struggle Co-ordination Committee.
etc.
I think we should avoid carelessly adopting the language of either of the belligerents in the conflict without attribution. It's an outpost as far as Israel is concerned and a village or whatever as far as the Palestinians are concerned, and all sorts of things, an encampment, a campsite, an outpost, a cluster of tents etc as far as the media are concerned. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say that the term Outpost was also represented in Haaretz coverage of previous incidents like http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-completes-evacuation-of-bil-in-outpost-1.177194 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.25.32 (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to sources this is a device of political protest, mirroring Israeli tactics. How about "The Countersettlement" per NYTimes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is an opinion blog. It is not suitable for deciding what is neutral encyclopedic language. We should stick to what has been used in reliable third party news reports. Dlv999 (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are sources allowed to just invent words ? I think a sensible way to go would probably be to call it something functional and boring, like an encampment/campsite, and say Israel calls it an outpost, Palestinians call it a village, something like that. But I don't think we can justify saying in Wikipedia's voice, "It's an outpost. The end." Sean.hoyland - talk 11:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bab al-Shams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bab al-Shams. 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:

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) 14:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bab_al-Shams&oldid=1242893377"