Jump to content

Talk:Karmiel

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

More angles on establishment?

[edit]

Can someone fill in the info on the city's establishment from another angle? Info from a book by Sabri Jiryis (with a foreword by Noam Chomsky) would probably have bias.
ehudshapira 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i will soon give some other angels. My masters degree's thesis was about the implementation of the city of Karmiel in the Beith Hakerem valley. I would bring more ressurces and will check the exactitude of the existing ones. Domozy 13:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia devoted to creating biased, imbalanced articles? This is hardly an article about Karmiel--look at the space devoted to land apropriation. Nothing about the cultural activities, the Arab businesses in Karmiel, the accredited university, what is made in the busy industrial area, the unique layout and greenspace, etc. I am truly embarrassed (yet again) at the poor quality and imbalance of Wikipedia. And note that the designation "Palestine" was originally given to Jewish Israel as an insult. Israel has reverted back to its ancient name. Granted, a people now, modernly, do use the name, and they are certainly full and worthy members of human race, and I hope free to speak up. But you give the impression here yet again that an ancient Arab peoples called Palestinians lost their homeland to foreigners. The ancient Biblical Peleset, the Philistines, from whence the word Palestine comes, were neither Arab, nor even Semitic, and they certainly did not live in most of what was ancient or modern Israel. Frankly, an unbiased article would immediately be branded as "biased." Maybe it can't be done. (Signed: A Karmieli) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.94.221 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 May 2007

No. Wikipedia is devoted to giving everyone the opportunity to do the research & writing needed to create what they believe belongs here. Sounds like you have what it takes. Do it! --Rich Janis (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of a town section dispute

[edit]

It's amazing that several editors are edit-warring on the main page, and no one started a discussion yet, so I'm going to go ahead and start one. I was notified of the problems on this page through my talk page by User:Gilabrand (a notice which should've been made clear here, but I didn't come to argue about canvassing).

In any case, after reviewing the nature of the edits, I have to say that I mostly agree with Gilabrand's position, although the fact that all involved editors have ignored the dispute resolution process is not helpful. Here are my reasons:

  • It is incoceivable, and a clear violation of the undue weight policy, to have more info about a controversy with dubious notability, than about the actual founding of the city (groundbreaking, planning, zoning, etc.), in a section meant to deal only with the founding of the city. Moving the controversy information to a 'founding controversy' section (which should not be part of history) would partly solve the WP:UNDUE problem, if the article is expanded to include more information about the non-controversial aspects of the city.
  • Further strengthening the above is the dubious notability of the controversy. The fact that the only person who seems to have written about it is a Palestinian activist is clear indication that the incident is non-notable, even assuming that the activist writing about it is 100% accurate in his statements.
  • Even though there are no sources disputing Jiryis on this issue (AFAIK), there is a clear conflict of interest here because he is a political figure and is/was part of the Palestinian legislature (judging by his article on Wiki). By comparison, other sources we sometimes use, no matter how disputed (especially Morris) are non-political. I think that something written by a Palestinian government official about the Arab–Israeli conflict should not be quickly taken at face value.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • For an article about a town this size it is not too much inf.;, if you think it is a WP:UNDUE problem, the *fill in* (start digging!) more information...don´t solve WP:UNDUE by takeing out sourced information!
  • As for being an "Arab source": yes, the writer is Arab, but just about all the sources he uses are Israeli/Jewish/Hebrew. (Including writers like Uri Davis) That is why nobody have disputed Jiryis.
  • If we are going to dispute/question all writers who have represented a political party (and cast doubt over them, saying they have "a clear conflict of interest"), how many Israelis would be left? Regards Huldra (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not entirely accurate. Karmiel is a small city with a short history, so even if everything reasonable to write about its history is written in an encyclopedic manner (see example GAs Ashdod, Arad, Israel), this particular controversy would still take up a large, and clearly undue, chunk of the section. Again, I don't think the controversy should be removed entirely, just significantly toned down and summarized (as well as introducing reliable sources). In any case, if the controversy is as prominent and important as you say, surely some real historians like Benny Morris or Yoav Gelber (or even Khalidi) have written about it? Morris brought to light information on most of the 1948 war massacres of Arabs by Jews, so there's no reason he wouldn't write about major land confiscations, unless those confiscations were non-notable.
  • I never said anything about Arab, Jewish or Japanese sources. I said that Jiryis was a politician in the Palestinian legislature, so it was a conflict of interest. You don't see me citing books by Golda Meir, Menachem Begin or Meir Kahane as factual information about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, so I expect you not to cite books written by Palestinian politicians. Especially, I expect reliable/authorative sources to be cited, i.e. historians for historical information, etc. Jiryis is not an historian, and neither is Uri Davis (again though, not sure how he is relevant).
  • See the above point.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I´m not sure what is "not entirely accurate" here. Yes; Karmiel is a relatively small city with a short history; that surely doesn´t mean it cannot have a long article? And that is was banned for non-Jews was (and is) the most well-known fact about it, at least outside Israel (AFAIK). Its history has been treated in several books, it seems as if it is "compulsory history" when it comes to the history of Israeli Arabs (together with Nazareth Illit) (just as when anybody mention depopulated 1948 villages, there are mostly 3-4 names that are mentioned again and again). I am not familiar with Yoav Gelber, but I am familiar with Benny Morris and he has AFAIK written very little about post 1950s. What he is excellent in is digging through newly released archives from the 1940s-early 1950s. I doubt Karmiel would have interested him much, as I assume most archives are still closed for the town (as you say: it has a short history.) The ones that I know of who have written about the town are those who have written about Arab-Israelis. If you only want "certified" historians quoted on this page I´m afraid you will not have any history. But then that will be the same for very, very many other Israeli cities. Do you really want to take away all history that isn´t written by certified Israeli historians? How much post-1960 history will then be left? This is an absurd demand.
  • The article now say: "Arab claims". I strongly object to this. You could just as well have said that "Jews claims". You said that Jiryis was a politician in the Palestinian legislature, so it was a conflict of interest. Well, in that case Meron Benvenisti has a conflict of interest (he was an Israeli politician, Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem), do you agree with that? Uri Avnery of course also has conflict of interest (former Knesset member) and so on, and so on. I think you should look at what Sabri Jiryis has published, and realise that he has worked for a research institute most of his life. Shall we dismiss everything say, Zbigniew Brzezinski ..and other American politicians/academics write (out of office), because they have/have had "a conflict of interest"? You have a big job ahead of you, if you try to enforce that as a policy..... But you want to enforce it for a Palestinian? No go. ....My point is that there is a fundamental difference between those with an academic background, who has worked with/in research institutes and then "free-lance" for a while in politicks (people like Jiryis, Benvenisti, and at a much higher scale; Zbigniew Brzezinski), and those without academic background, and/or those who are politicians their whole life (like Begin, Meir). We can both agree that the second group should not be used as an academic source. I do not agree if you say we cannot use the first group as a source. If we cannot use Jiryis, then we cannot use Benvenisti either. Do you agree? If you want, we can go to the WP:RS noticeboard and get a "judgement", or better, I think: bring it to to Pal/Israel -colaberation-board (More knowledgeable people..)
  • I think the way forward here is to dig up information about other sides of the history, (and there are many!), say, where did the immigrants come from? What did they work with? How was the town planned? etc, etc. Start adding stuff. not removing it. Regards, Huldra (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's where we disagree. Not only is the land dispute with Israel-Arabs clearly not the most well-known issue in Karmiel's history, it is also by far not the most important. If it is, as you say, such an important issue for Israeli Arabs, then the information should be in the article Israeli Arabs and not here. Maybe start a new article about history of land disputes between the Israeli government and its Arab citizens. If Morris and other historians weren't really interested in this town's Arab-Jewish disputes, then this is an excellent indication that what you're proposing to add is undue weight. Controversial events with little to no historical importance should not be covered so in-depth. About other history, unrelated to the conflict, I don't think you understand what I'm saying at all. Karmiel (and other new Israeli cities) have short simple histories with little to no controversies, and don't require the same standards for sources as the disputed points (again, see WP:REDFLAG). We certainly don't need a reputed historian to tell us, for example, that Karmiel was a development down started in 1963, or when a particular neighborhood was planned. In fact, for facts like that I'd say that a geometrical data website (like this) would hold more weight than any historian.
  • It's funny that each time we talk, you come up with some new names (some familiar to me and others that are not), and when I look them up, they happen to be exterme leftists (suprise surprise). At the same time, you are not familiar with well-known mainstream and highly-reputed non-political Israeli historians/Israel researchers like Yoav Gelber (and likely Jeuda Wallach and Zev Vilnay, for example). I think this is exactly the problem here—using mainstream sources vs. fringe sources (especially Uri Avnery, who falls under every definition of WP:FRINGE). I am more than willing to look into extreme left sources, but I ask you to also try to find more mainstream ones (both pro-Israel and those clearly anti-Israel, like the historian Walid Khalidi, if you like). As I already said about Benvenisty in this discussion (not sure about Brzezinsky as I've never made a connection between him and Israel), I would generally oppose using him as a source (and have never seen this done on Wikipedia anyway) even though he's a very minor politician and certainly not a member of the Knesset (Israeli legislature). Even so, I can't see how you can compare Jiryis, who is known 90% for his pro-Palestinian political (activist?) activities, and Benvenisty, who is completely unknown as a politician.
  • That I will. However, as I said before, not enough can potentially be written about Karmiel's actual history to make your addition of Arab claim look like the minor issue that it is. Certain Wikipedians have in the past artificially inflated articles to huge proportions (which shouldn't have been more than 2-3 paragraphs) by making direct lengthy quotes from their sources, but this isn't how an encyclopedic article should be written, and I certainly won't support bloating up the prose about Karmiel's actual history just in order to eclipse the Arab claims. Everything should be written in an encyclopedic manner and given due weight.
I'll get back to you with more information once I have time to do actual research. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am at a loss to understand you when you write that " land dispute with Israel-Arabs clearly not the most well-known issue in Karmiel's history." Well, fine: can you tell what *is* the most well-known issue, then?
  • You argue that we cannot use Jiryis as a source since he also has had a political position. If you want to impose such a rule, then it had to be valid for all of WP, not only in the ME-section. Therefore I mentioned Brzezinsky, not because he had any connection to Israel, but because he is in a similar situation, i.e. an academic who has served in a political position. I could also mention Joseph Stiglitz to show what absurdity such a position would lead to: we could not quote from him since he served a political role under Clinton? That the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem for 7 years is "a very minor politician" is your claim, I would say that he no more minor politician than Jiryis. And please do some research before you post: there are dozens of articles which use Benvenisti as a source; do a search. You claim that Jiryis is 90% known for political work, but that is 100% untrue in my part of the world. Here he is 100% known (if he is known at all) for his books; the "Arab Israeli" book has been translated both into Swedish and Norwegian. Again: I would strongly urge you to read the book; (though it is dryer that the Sahara...;-P). Personally, I first heard of Jiryis through Göran Rosenberg, who is one of the most influential writers about Israel in Scandinavia. Some would argue the most influential. And very "main-stream," in my society.
  • I have read (and continue to read) any source which writes about Karmiel. But to use the fact that Benny Morris has not written about the history of Karmiel as "an excellent indication that what you're proposing to add is undue weight", is, IMHO, quite absurd. Morris is a historian who has done a great job going through newly opened archives in Israel (and elsewhere). Most /many of these archives have a 50-year clause, so 1948 material was first available in 1998. The newest would be 1958 material being available this year. And it takes some time to study it/+ write it. Therefore, the history of Karmiel is simply too young for a historian like Morris: the material is most likely not available. Off-hand I cannot think of any subject that after 1956 that he has written about. And Zev Vilnay would not be a RS according to your own criteria (a military topographer in the Haganah? No given academic credentials? Forget it;-D)
  • I am looking forward to your own research on the subject. Regards, Huldra (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a no-brainer. Karmiel is a development town success story, and that is the most important and well-known aspect in its history. This is the first association any Israeli would have with Karmiel, and any foreigner who has been to Israel and has heard about the town. Only pro-Palestinian 'actvists' seem to emphasize other angles. Secondly, please do not ignore my other concerns, such as WP:REDFLAG.
  • I am sorry that you cannot tell the difference between a known long-time Palestinian (or Israeli) legislator writing about contentious things which he personally politically lobbied for (therefore, the writing is an extension of his politics, and not vice versa), being an academic of law (like Dershowitz)—and a non-political professional like Zev Vilnay, who never held any public view and was content with working on his books about Israeli geography and history. I can throw the 'haven't done research' back at you, as Vilnay doesn't only have academic credentials, he has a doctorate and served as visiting professor in numerous Israeli universities. In fact, this applies to all cases (Chomsky, Dershowitz, Tibi, Jiryis, etc.)—when you look at their academic work, you have to ask yourself if it's an extension of their political view/activities. In some cases (especially Chomsky/Dershowitz), the answer is crystal clear. If you provide me with a list of articles where either of these two are cited without 'according to ...', I will glady add that clause. On a side note, almost all Israeli historians and academics had served in the IDF (even Morris, despite refusing to do so, because you're drafted before you can refuse), and political opinion are strictly prohibited in the army, so being in the Haganah/IDF is not an excuse to exclude someone, unlike being a politician. Moreover, it's highly unfortunate that (according to you) the only written works/authors about Israel–Palestine popular in Scandinavia are highly extreme-left and anti-Israel, but this is certainly not your fault. For the sake of NPOV however, I expect you to also look into sources from the 'other side' of the political spectrum, and most importantly, non-political sources.
  • I only gave Morris as an example, and you're right that he doesn't seem to dedicate any works to the post-1956 era (even though you're wrong about the documents—only IDF archives are made publically available after 50 years; government documents like land use are available at all times, if you know where to look). The point is, if not a single real historian wrote about this (not just Morris, but anyone), then it's a clear indication of undue weight. I am very interested in what Uri Davis wrote, and am still waiting for your draft using him as a source directly, and not Jiryis, who supposedly based his work on Davis's.
  • I apologize again for taking my time with this, but please bear with me. I am in the process of being released from the IDF, and all my weekdays are still taken up, so doing serious research is rather difficult at the moment. It shouldn't take more than a couple more weeks though. Until them, I'll be glad to see what Davis wrote, as well as the other materials you said you ordered.

Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just quickly two words: my order of Jiryis book in English (+ Ian Lusticks book) have been confirmed, and I have been told they are in the mail. From experience that means they will arrive in anything from 3 days to 3 months..I will return to this article then. In the meantime, please read the history-section of Nazareth Illit, even better: read the source in "The Journal of Israeli History," (2006) and you will see that your claim for WP:REDFLAG is not valid, for a start. And I have noted what "independent" level of sources you demand when it comes to, say criticisms of Machsom Watch. And how WP:UNDUE is interpreted in *that* article. I´ll return here when my books have arrived. Regards, Huldra (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced information

[edit]

Firstly, a very pro-Israeli editor, Gilabrand, object to facts in the history-section of this article and deleted them, (facts which have been in the article for more than two years(!)). Since I reversed Gilabrandts reversions, he the goes to another well-known pro-Israeli editor, Ynhochey, for help. Therefore, Ynhockey comes here and removes supports the removal of most of the history of Karmiel. And he they do NOT move deleted material to the talk-page, instead he they just completely burries it(!) However, this was what the history-part looked like:

History

[edit]
Birth of a town
[edit]

In 1956, about 1,275 acres belonging to the Israeli Arab villages of Deir al-Asad, Bi'ina and Nahf were declared as "closed areas" by Israeli authorities. This area, situated next to the main road between Acre and Safed, included some of the finest marble quarries in Israel. Five years later, in 1961, the Israeli authorities were able to expropriate the land (giving the reason that the land was not in use) for the building of Karmiel. The expropriation met with strong resistance from the Arab villagers who offered the government other land which was more suitable for building a town. The government refused, offering instead "equally good land" in the same area.

When Moshe Sneh (Maki) and Yusef Khamis (Mapam) brought the case to the Knesset on behalf of the villagers, and as it turned out, there was no "equally good land" in the area.[1] Following the debate the villagers arranged a protest meeting in March 1962. The military Governor of Galilee, however, declared the villages "closed areas" on the day of the protest, so nobody could contact the villagers and the meetings were therefore cancelled. The same happened with a protest meeting planned for January 1964.

After the first part of Karmiel was finished and Jews had started moving in, some local Arabs applied for permission to move into the town, but were denied. The Minister of Housing, Yosef Almogi, refused in a Knesset debate in 1964 to answer whether it was forbidden for Arabs to live in Karmiel. He only replied that "Karmiel was not built to solve the problems for the people in the surrounding area."[2]

Many Jewish Israelis were upset by what they saw as discrimination against Arabs and in February 1965 about 400 people walked from Tel Aviv to the "closed-off" areas around Karmiel, protesting against "discrimination of a group of our citizens". Representatives of the protesters went to a local police station, informing the police that they were staying in the area without permission. Nobody was arrested immediately, but as soon as things had quiet down the perceived leaders were arrested and put before military tribunal.[3]

In January and February 1972 an Israeli Arab entrepreneur offered to invest money in building industry where both Jews and Arabs could work in the town. The offer divided the town, but those who opposed won, and the offer was rejected.[4]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Knesset debate, 31 Jan. 1962, page 1126-30, cited in Jiryis
  2. ^ Knesset debate, 2 Des. 1964, page 486, cited in Jiryis
  3. ^ Maariv, 14 Feb., 1965, cited in Jiryis
  4. ^ Maariv, 30 Jan., 1972, Davar, 10. and 16. February 1972, cited in Jiryis

Well, I can agree with Ynhochey (and Gilabrand) that there was material missing (especially missing is (IMO): who were the immigrants settling there? I understand they were mostly from Eastern Europe; I would much like to see more about that demographics). BUT uneven coverage isno excuse for burrying well-sourced material.

Also: calling one sections "Arab claims" is rather insulting IMO; what if we started to call everything which is only based on Jewish sources as "Jewish claims"? And calling it "Arab claims" when it is based on Knesset references, and Maariv, a Hebrew newspaper?!

And finally, the irony; if Ynhochey or Gilabrand had bothered to do their "home-work" before they did their mass-removal; they would have found that the people who have written the most critically about Karmiel are......Jews. See what Israel Shahak wrote back in 1975 in The Racist nature of Zionism and of the Zionistic State of Israel The Link, volume 8, issue 5 Winter 1975: "Another example in the same area can be given if we remember the case of Mr. Mohammed Maáruf, an Israeli citizen from the village of Dir El-Assad, who wanted to open a factory in the town of Carmiel. This was officially prohibited to him because of the official reason that Carmiel is "out of bonds" to non-Jews, and surely enough, at the end he had to build his factory outside the "pure" boundaries of Carmiel.....I can dwell or open a business in any place of my choice [ ] but only because my mother was a Jewess. An Israeli citizen whose mother was not a Jewess can not enjoy this right."

And if they had done their home-work, they would have known that Jiryis got much of his information from Uri Davis; his book: Deir al-Asad: The Destiny of an Arab Village in Galilee, in Palestinian Arabs in Israel: Two Case Studies, Ithaca Press, London 1977, (as co-editor, with Hasan Amun, and Nasr Dakhlallah San´allah) ISBN 0-903729-32-6 details the development of Karmiel (which took place on land which used to belong to Deir al-Asad ...and the removal of their land plunged many (most?) of the people of Deir al-Asad into poverty.) I can basically rewrite the whole history, saying the same, but using only Jewish sources. However, the Jewish sources normally express themselves far stronger than what Jiryis did..I can also, if you want me to, quote the false letter written by the Knesset Subcommittee to the villagers in 1956, assuring them that their land would not be confiscated.. (p. 11-12 in Davis´s book), etc, etc. Now, do you want to reverse the edits, or do I have to do it myself? Regards, Huldra (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that all of my non-minor edits to this article have been content additions, not removals. Not sure where you got the notion that I 'removed sourced content', so please look at the page history before insulting other editors. Other than that, I'd be happy to debate with you on the merits of using Jiryis as a source, if you reply to the points I raised above (no point in going in circles). Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry that you feel my comments were insulting, they were not meant to be. And I see that it was mostly Gilabrand who did the actual deleting, you did "the supporting"; and I have changed the text accordingly (from "he" to "they"). That does not change my main point: the deletions are completely unacceptable. Pease get hold of the Uri Davis book, if you do not believe me. Also take a look at the Nazareth Illit-article: it had very much a similar history. Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, I didn't do 'the supporting', as you imply, I came here in order to start a discussion which both you and Gilabrand ignored in favor of edit-warring—and after my post, it took you over 2 weeks to come to this page, and Gilabrand has yet to reply at all. The content removed by Gilabrand was entirely cited from Jiryis's works, so I'm not sure how Uri Davis is relevant to this argument. Please reply first to the points I raised on 11 October about this very issue, and then we can commence with a civilized debate. Until that is done, I'm afraid I don't see a point in shooting off in a completely new direction. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ynhockey: As I stated earlier, I have been away, in fact since the 11 of October. The first thing I do when I come back is to respond here.
  • You say you come here to start a discussion (*after* one part notified you), and then you just "happened" to agree with him. Yeah. Right. You have been around here for some time, Ynhockey: if it was only a discussion that was wanted/needed then you know as well as I do that one notify the wiki-projects involved, one does not solicit help from editors which one is normally in agreement with. It is of course not "illegal", but it isn´t NPOV either. You know this as well as I do, Ynhockey.
  • you write: "The content removed by Gilabrand was entirely cited from Jiryis's works, so I'm not sure how Uri Davis is relevant to this argument". And that is the problem. You want to "start a discussion", but you are not familiar with the case, neither with what Jiryis nor with what Uri Davis writes about Karmiel. Short version: Uri Davis did most of the research for his book ("Two case studies"), Jiryis quoted the original sources as given by Davis. Ok? So just about everything that is sourced to Jiryes, could also be sourced to Davis. (When I added the information I only had the Jiryes -book, at the moment I only have the Davis-book, but can get the Jiries -book when the library open tomorrow.) And I am replying to the stuff above, as fast as I can type, which admittedly isn´t very fast. Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I made myself clear with the original post, but I'll reiterate: Gilabrand's note to my talk page was not appropriate. Even so, that in no way prevents me from coming to this page as a result of the note and providing my opinion (whether in support or opposition of Gilabrand). I am in fact quite glad that I was informed, as an editor who is interested in the articles on all 76 Israeli cities, even though the note should've been different and posted on WP:Israel and not my talk page.
Secondly, my argument was based on my opposition to using Jiryis as a source, as well as WP:UNDUE concerns (see my latest reply above). Uri Davis is an entirely different argument, and if you believe that information sourced to him is more reliable than to Jiryis (which it is not, because Davis isn't an historian, but for the sake of argument), then you should try preparing a draft with the new refs, and we will discuss that. So far, you clearly stated that you wished to restore your original version, which didn't contain a single reference to Davis, and I am strongly opposed to such a restoration (again, read latest points above).
Lastly, please do not feel pressured to type as fast as you can. Thought-out replies are better than quick replies and if it takes you an extra day to reply, that is completely fine with me and no one has the right to demand that you reply faster.
Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am glad you make it perfectly clear that Gilabrand's note was not appropriate. A note should have been posted on WP:Israel and WP:Palestine. And you don´t really think that Gilabrand posted on your page, thinking that you would disagree with him? That would be what we in my part of the world would call "too blue-eyed" (which is *not* a compliment in Scandinavia ;-P) Anyway, what I would like is to restore the old version, and working from that adding inf. /citations from Davis. But to do that I see I have to -for a start- get Jiriys accepted as a RS (btw, have you read the Haaretz interview with him, linked from the bottom of his article?) If you do not accept him as a source, I suggest you take the question to one (or both) of the two places I mentioned above. I think I´m logging out for today.. Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to left
I haven't personally done very much research on Karmiel, other than what I personally know and a few basic online sources, but I guess you're kind of forcing me here (not that I really mind), so more research on my part is imminent. I won't read Jiryis or Davis for the research though :) About the content, I object its restoration—nothing prevents us from reaching consensus on the talk page for a usable draft, and there's certainly no hurry to add the content to the actual page. I still oppose either Jiryis or Davis as WP:RS, but I guess Davis would be much more reliable as a non-politician. An actual historian would be preferrable however. Please consider in your draft not only WP:V/WP:RS though, but also WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE—in a case like this, each word is important. On my part, I will read some stuff about Karmiel and go to the library when I have time (still in the army, which prevents me from going to the library most of the time). It shouldn't be hard to reach a compromise on both sources and wording here, although it could take time, and I hope you are not in a great hurry on this issue. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I´m very glad you intend to do some more research on Karmiel, but I do not see why "the removed stuff" cannot be brought into the article again, while you dig up sources. It was, after all in the article for more than 2 years before Gilabrandt decided he didn´t like it. And perhaps you haven´t seen my questions above? To repeat; if we cannot use any source(writer) who has a "political record", then we have exclude people like Benvenisti and Brzezinski.
Anyway, I´m bringing this over to the I/P collaboration board, to get more "eyes". (It really should have been done earlier, but better late than never!) Regards, Huldra (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, yes, I don't think that prominent political figures (e.g. members of the national legislature) can be used as sources. Some minor political figures can be used, and consensus has to be reached for them. I have honestly never seen works by either of the figures you mentioned (Benvenisti and Brzezinsky) used on Wikipedia as sources, but I would generally oppose their use even though they are clearly minor political figures. On a side note, why is it that you always bring up fringe extreme-left Israeli figures in the discussion (i.e. Davis and Benvenisti)? Why not start with more mainstream sources? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would like to agree with Huldra that "Arab claims" is a pretty bad section header. Then again, so is "Birth of a town". I think this part should be merged into the history section. I'm not sure about the reliability of Jiryis of Davis, or if there's a general agreement on citing major political figures. I have a copy of Hillel Cohen's book Good Arabs, in Hebrew, which goes over this subject. Would it be acceptable? -- Nudve (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very familiar with Hillel Cohen's work, but from what I've been able to gather, Cohen meets all the requirements for WP:RS. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I look at it again, his material on Karmiel is brought in a somewhat sideways manner. I'll see if I can do it without giving it undue weight. You are right, and more research is needed. -- Nudve (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I agree that 'Arab claims' is not a good encyclopedic heading. However, until reliable sources are introduced, there isn't really anything to call the information that exists in that section. After we can be certain that they (or some of them) are fact, then we can change the section header accordingly. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newest developement

[edit]

The issue is now under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I have ordered the English edition of Jiryis work; his book is translated both to Swedish and Norwegian, and I had only one of these Scandinavian editions available at the local library. In order for us to agree about wording and page-numbering, I thought I must get the English version. However, I will in any case not be working on this for the next weeks, as I have 2 books on Palestinian cinema on loan from out-of-town libraries, so working on Cinema of Palestine must be my priority in the nearest future.

Ynhochey, how is your research on Karmiels history progressing? Regards, Huldra (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had much time to do anything lately and will get back to this issue either this weekend or next. Sorry for the delay. In the meantime, Nudve will possibly be able to bring some new information. Today I will reply to your October 28 comments which I didn't notice until today. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This articles from the Israel Democracy Institute mentions the expropriation (5000 dunams). Hillel Cohen's book discusses it as a case study of the Israeli security services' use of collaborators to affect the media, so much of it isn't entirely relevant here. He does mention Uri Davis' efforts and the February 1965 demonstration in particular, so it's probably notable. -- Nudve (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

isn't it Carmiel?

[edit]

with a C? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.101.214 (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it written that way, but generally it is written with a K. You are probably confusing it with Carmel, which is almost always written with a C. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karmiel or Karmi'el

[edit]

To write Karmi'el is incorrect. The use of the apostrophe when transliterating Hebrew is for the glottal stop before the letter ayin. Karmiel is written with an aleph and not an ayin, so Karmiel is the correct transliteration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymruisrael (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why in my original edit, I changed it to "Karmiˀel" according to ISO 259-3 or even other ISO 259 editions, but someone undid it. Ly362 (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But who decided that an apostrophe denotes ˁayn? There's no agreed upon standard. Ly362 (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact in most signs here it says "Karmi'el". Ly362 (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here isn't the correct literal transliteration (the Academy for the Hebrew Language makes the standards), but the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. One such guideline is WP:COMMONNAME, which states that you can't use an obscure name (including transliterations) if there is a common one. Using non-ASCII symbols in titles is also problematic from a technical point of view (except dashes, which is no longer an issue). —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to what you said, the "transliteration" of this name here should be "Karmi'el". Ly362 (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It already was in the original version, see infobox. The mail title, however, should reflect the name most commonly used in English, if there is one. This is a fairly clear-cut case. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an English name for this relatively new city, it isn't Jerusalem. The common Romanization here in Israel is "Karmi'el", that's what appears on all road signs and other signs here around Karmi'el and farther south, and also that's what the Hebrew Transliteration guideline here on Wikipedia insturcts, doesn't it? Not that I am happy with the situation of the Romanization, including the newer decision of the academy, for road signs, that's I'm not sure when it should take effect. I'm in favor of ISO 259-3 in any case, like "Karmiˀel", but if not then it should be "Karmi'el". Ly362 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Karmiel has appeared often enough in English-language publications, and has consistently been spelled Karmiel. Again, there's no ambiguity here—it's not like a number of significant publication used a different spelling. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply only to cities that have a Biblical English name. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think you should also review this policy, which states that: "In a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Karmiel. 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.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Karmiel. 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.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Karmiel. 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) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Karmiel. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Karmiel. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History: clarifications & sources needed

[edit]

See tags. Looks like a transl. from heWiki done long ago and not updated or reworked. Arminden (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karmiel&oldid=1232359428"