Talk:Umm Tuba

Stubs

There's a disagreement about what stub(s) to use for this stub. Umm Tuba is NOT part of Israel (the internationally recognized part, i.e. pre-67 borders), therefore it shouldn't have an Israel geo stub. Umm Tuba is not under PNA, therefore it shouldn't have a PNA geo stub.

Either both stubs are used, as it is an area claimed by both Israel and the PNA, or we change the PNA geo stub to Palestine geo stub (where Palestine can refer to either the GEOGRAPHIC area of historic Palestine OR the internationally recognized Occupied Palestinian Territories. It falls within both definitions) --Fjmustak 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable

I find this edit unacceptable, as the "advocacy source" is a project funded by the EU. ("This text has been drafted with financial assistance from the Commission of the European Communities. The views expressed herein are those of the beneficiary and therefore in no way reflect the official opinion of the Commission.") It cannot be removed with a "IDONTLIKEIT"-argument. Huldra (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Huldra. Glad to see somebody cares about this article and wants to improve it. But several of the articles you added as external links do not mention Umm Tuba. There is no justification in adding long lists of external links that have no direct connection to the topic of the article. I'm sure, familiar as I am with your long history of constructive contributions to Wikipedia, that you can find good academic sources. Best,--Geewhiz (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Check again. Can you list one article I listed that does not mention Umm Tuba? All 4 articles mentions it, mostly about land that people from Um Tuba have lost. Please reverse. (And yes, there a lots of other (historical) sources too, I have just started expanding this article. ) Huldra (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why they remove external links to ARIJ-info ( a EU-funded project) while keeping info in the article which is actually sourced to http://www.jerusalemfoundation.org (founded by Teddy Kollek) and even info sourced to http://www.mfa.gov.il/? Are those "neutral"? Either all those sources go too, or nothing goes. Also, the fact that a web-site use a less common expression ("Israeli War of Independence") does not mean that we should not use the most common expression. Firstly, we avoid a redir. Secondly, we should strive for what is most commonly used/neutral; not just parrot partisan sources. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

sorry about the link. i have changed it to 1948 Arab–Israeli War. and not sure what is wrong with jerusalem foundation or the mfa for their information? Soosim (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the link. As for Jerusalem foundation or the mfa: the poica links were not used for info in the articles, but were still removed as "non-neutral POV organization." I believe that sources actually used for info in the article should at least be as NPOV as those in ext. links (Personally I have a lower tresh-hold for the "External links"-section, than I have for actual reference-sources.) As you can see, I did not remove the Jerusalem foundation or the mfa-sources. (Thought especially the mfa-source gives a very one-sided view; the same issue (about the possible Biblical place) is discussed at length by Guerin and SWP.) My question is: are you really willing to claim that, say, the mfa web-site is a NPOV-source?? (I so, I am quite willing to show you a few places where they present a distorted view of history, to say the least. You can start with this: [1]. They simply cannot be trusted for history, but still I´m quite willing to keep the present source in the article...if we write "according to". But I think it is a horrific double-standard to include info, sourced to clear pro-Israeli-sources, while deleting external poica-links as being "POV". Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I will reintroduce the external links. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

i do object. poica is not appropriate for this. Soosim (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hear an argument (beyond "Idontlikeit") as to why poica is more POV than, say, www.mfa.gov.il? Note: the argument started with the claim that the village was not mentioned in the external links. When that was shown to to be accurate, the goal-post argument changed. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a general comment here, POICA, which is basically a branch of the Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem (ARIJ), is reliable for statistical information. With regards to historical and political matters, however, material cited to POICA or ARIJ should be attributed to those sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I try to avoid quoting it on history, as there are normally better sources around. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

poica - like every other research institute, academic institution, etc. is only reliable if quote in a third-party RS. otherwise it is OR, and, their own POV. there are dozens of these out there, and none are allowed by themselves. Soosim (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, whaw, what if followed that for pro-Israeli sources too? Lol! Huldra (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

huldra - it should be followed for everyone. Soosim (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of this rule is not what I see here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Electronic_Intifada.I will bring it up there, if you do not agree. And again: you really have not answered my question about wether you think mfa.gov.il can be quoted directly. That is noted. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

please do bring it up since it is being discussed anyway. always good to have more points of view. and about mfa.gov.il - they are RS for their material. (they are often used on wikipedia for speaking for "israel" even though a country might have many voices.) and they are no different than the equivalent .ps site, right? Soosim (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

the source does not say muslim households

i removed the word 'muslim' since the source (Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth and Kamal Abdulfattah (1977). Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century. Erlanger Geographische Arbeiten, Sonderband 5. Erlangen, Germany: Vorstand der Fränkischen Geographischen Gesellschaft. p. 117.) does not use that word to describe the households. i looked through the book, searched various key words including 'beehives', 'households', 'wheat', etc but it wasn't there. in fact, when i searched the entire book for the word 'muslim', it wasn't there at all. so, zero, please revert your edit, and please do not call it a "phony excuse". if you can prove it, fine, i will accept it. but for now, there is no proof at all. (oh, and by the way, zero, i think you are supposed to discuss it on the talk page first, before you revert an edit. wikicourtesy) Soosim (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Soosim: I am sitting with the book in front of me: At the very end of the book there is a fold-out page, titled "Explanation of abbrivations". Under "Explantion of the code numbers" it says:

8) hana/mujarred (family heads/bachelors) of moslem population, or hana only, if no mujarrad is mentioned

9) hana/mujarred (family heads/bachelors) of Christian population, or hana only

10) hana/mujarred (family heads/bachelors) of Jewish population, or hana only

11) total

Now, for Umm Tuba, p. 117 it has 8)36 11)36, in other words: an entirely Muslim population of 36 households. The fold-out page also describe what form of taxes were paid ( including 'beehives', 'wheat' etc). The one change I have made is that I usually use the word "households" instead of "family heads". Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, I apologise for the word "phony", which should have been "incorrect" as Huldra demonstrates. But I wonder how you can search the book for the word "Muslim" and not find it, since it appears many times (though not as often as "Moslem"). And the produce subject to tax, including wheat and bees, is discussed at length (pp. 79–85). Finally, no I don't have to go to the talk page in the first instance when someone makes an elementary error about a source. You didn't go to the talk page before your edit. Btw, the word "households" is a common way good sources report the "hana" figure, and indeed Hütteroth and Abdulfattah write (p. 36) "hana means household". Bernard Lewis in "Studies in the Ottoman Archives--I" (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3 (1954), 469-501) calls this the number of "tax-paying households" with the explanation "A married man with his family, constituting a fiscal unit.". Other authors convert it to an approximate number of people by multiplying by a guess (usually between 5 and 6) for the average household size, but I prefer we don't do that. Zero^talk 01:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

can you scan the fold out page and post it somewhere? i searched the book through google in-the-book search. it is very thorough, and those terms do not show up. i think it would be helpful. thanks! Soosim (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I uploaded an old scan here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HutterothKey.pdf ...it might be a copy-right-violation, so expect it to be taken down. You really should get hold of the book, though; any library you can get it from? The book has several maps loose at the end..a couple of them are huge (more than 1 square meter), and not really easy to copy. The first map ("Karte 1") is very useful, as it shows what part of each village belongs so what religion. Most are wholly white =all Muslim. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

thank you very much. great document. Soosim (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad you liked it, note that the file is already marked for deletion! The book is great, filled with info, however, it is no exactly in a "best-seller-format". I have been trying to list the villages here: User:Huldra/HA, as I have been updating them. My goal is to have all the 7+ places updated, eventually...Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The Etymology-sections seriously need to be expanded ( preferably by some French-speaker?) The (current) mfa-source is partly contradicted by Guerin, while Palmer comes up with a third explanation. Huldra (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you find the original of the announcement that mfa is reporting? Usually one looks at antiquities.org.il but for the past few days there has been a javascript there that kills my browser. Zero^talk 00:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have found it here. I can also see that (now banned user) Historist, who added the stuff, misrepresented the text. I will change it. Huldra (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Inactive links

The following links are inactive:
Construction at a New Location on Abu Ghnaim Mountain (Har Homa Settlement) 18, November, 2000, ARIJ
The snaking Wall enters area (A) in Bethlehem 04, December, 2003, ARIJ
House demolition in East Jerusalem during the month of August 30, September, 2004, ARIJ
House demolition cases and testimonies from Jerusalem 19, September, 2006, ARIJ--77.125.85.13 (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The file East Jesrusalem Map

The file : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EastJerusalemMap.svg :

In green : West Bank, Arab areas ; and East Jerusalem, Arab areas

In dark blue : West Bank, Jewish areas ; and East Jerusalem, Jewish areas : these are colonies in Palestinian territories.

יניב הורו removed it saying "unnecessary" and "POV". It is necessary to understand why some areas are green and some others are blue : the meaning of these colors. POV : see what is written in the file. Thank you.--2A01:CB00:980:7A00:90A8:3B48:42D8:4C2 (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)