I don't believe they are notable by themselves and would agree with he.wiki's example - you could cite WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOT#NEWS (People notable only for one event) or WP:NOT#Memorial. пﮟოьεԻ57 15:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought, but perhaps a redirect to Israeli MIAs is better? -- Nudve (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the general idea of a redirect, although the current situation is not ideal. The page Israeli MIAs provides absolutely no information about the circumstances of their disappearance, and also doesn't say what has been done to retrieve them. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think such information can be inserted into Israeli MIAs. Nothing says it has to remain purely a list. Actually, the same can be said for Guy Hever. -- Nudve (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Given that, Ron Arad, Tenenbaum, Regev, and Goldwasser also fit single event memorial pages as do all other MIAs. The three Sultan Yaakov MIAs are significant since; time still MIA, and the low amount of Israeli MIAs making each one notable by default. I don't think these are memorial pages and I try to refrain from using he wp as a barometer of much. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? You're citing WP:OTHERSTUFF, but then using it as an argument? The four you've cited have recieved far, far much more media attention than the three MIAs here. Their details could easily be merged into the main article, which is barely more than a stub at the moment. пﮟოьεԻ57 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 'more media attention' should also be balanced with the fact that there is simply more media now. I'm sure that Shalit, Regev and Goldwasser have received 'more media attention' in the last two years than all MIAs put together. 'More media attention' is not a true barometer of encyclopedia information. Perhaps you can explain why the three from Sultan Yakoub are not notable while the others are? If we are going for true celeb status, I'd agree that only Ron Arad is a legit entry. Frankly, otherstuff can be used anyway people want to use it. --Shuki (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Burma road
I have a question about Burma road.
Does someone know if the main road that linked the coastal plain to Jerusalem after the war was built on the Burma road's trace or if it was another one (south of this one ?), eg along the railroad ?
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that after the war, the road now titled Highway 44 was the main road. Highway 1, which goes through Sha'ar HaGai, was only opened later. I'm not absolutely positive, though. -- Nudve (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The route starts at the settlement of Harel, on route 44, and cuts through the woods to Neve Shalom. From there it continues uphill (still through the woods), pretty much parallel to route 1, until Shoresh, where it joins route 1 at the Shoeva junction.
The route is now part of "Shvil Yisrael", the hiking trail that stretches the entire length of Israel. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answers.
Indeed, it goes about 1 km south of Neve Shalom (through Harel / Beit Jiz) and then links Beit Susin. After Beit Mashir, it is easy because an important road already existed in 1948 and went to Shoeva (Saris).
But between these, where would you locate the Burma road between Beit Susin and Beit Mashir on this map ?
I read it passed through Har Tuv which is difficult to consider reliable because 'Islin and 'Artuv where attacked around 18 July, ie 1 month after the road was operationnal... ???
I would like to correct the map from wikipedia where Hartuv and S'ara and not properly located and where I am not sure for the "Route de Birmanie" way...
Here is what I did with your map and drawing : Burma road Do you think it is ok ? Ceedjee (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The route looks right in general. The Burma road would be the orange dashed line that runs through Khirbet Beit Far, Beit Jiz, Beit Susin, and Beit Mahsin. None of those appear on my map - it is fair to assume that Beit Mahsin is Beit Meir, which is where the Burma road joined the regular Mandatory road. As far as I know, the Burma road did not pass through any Arab villages (that was the whole point), so either the villages on the map were abandoned before the 48 war or the route bypassed them. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok for Beit Meir. The name was changed later.
Inhabitants of Khirbet Beit Far, Beit Jiz, Beit Susin and Beit Mahsin left or were expelled during operation Nahshon and Maccabi so more than 1 month before Latrun battles but some villages were occupied by ALA and Palestinian volunteers. (ref. Morris, Birth... Revisited)
Morris draws the Burma road through Beit Susin and Beit Jiz and on the Palmah website they refer to both these villages as unloading areas when the road was not finished and material/food was carried by men [1].
For Khirbet Beit Far, I don't know. It is just because there was a small road there and that your map shows the Burma road in that area.
But I am really amazed that in the area east of Beit Susin the road was so close to Sha'ar HaGai. Anyway this fits your drawing and Morris's one. My point comes from the fact that according to the relief, the Jordanian should see the trucks from artillery ridge without problem. So I don' understant how it is possible. More, on the Palmach website, they talk about the road from Hartuv (!) to Beit Mashir [2] which would be more "clever" but I don't understand because both Morris and Khalidi say 2 villages north of kibbutz Hartuv as well as 'Artuv arabe village only felt in mid-July.
This is not easy. Ceedjee (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In his last book : 1948, Benny Morris has drown a map where the Burma road goes from Deir Muheizin, Beit Jis, Beit Susin and Beit Mahsin. He draws a straight line but I assume this is something that looks more like Ravpapa's drawing. Ceedjee (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier today, an editor renamed the Mechitza article Mehitza on grounds that the change is required by this naming conventions guideline. Some questions:
Is this really a guideline? Did it ever get consensus in the relevant part of a community, or was it labeled a guideline on agreement of a small number of users? I'm not going to change the status without discussion but I'd like to know what the community thinks.
Should it be clarified that it doesn't apply to this type of case? The general WP:Naming conventions guideline says to use the term most commonly used in English based on general rather than specialized use. A guideline that imposes a specific standardized transliteration scheme based on specialist opinion resulting in commonly-used words being spelled in unused and possibly unrecognizable ways would seem to go against the spirit of the guideline. The main guideline reflects a philosophy that because article names are the way users look up subjects, they need to reflect the search terms (and spellings) actual users are most likely to employ in their searches. Given this situation, I personally don't think an approach that bases article names on any standardized spelling method not reflecting actual English use is consistent with the overall guideline. Such an approach may be permissable for words that have almost never been spelled in English, but I don't think Wikipedia's overall WP:Naming conventions guideline makes it a permissable option for words that have tens of thousands of ghits, regularly appear in English-language newspaper articles, and show other evidence of common use in English. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz using Wikipedia articles?
I was updating the Tamir Goodman article today (he's just signed for Maccabi Haifa) and was referencing it to this Haaretz article. During this, I noticed a lot of similarities in the text (which I checked hadn't been added since the Haaretz article went online). There was a particular resemblence between these paragraphs;
Wikipedia version:
Goodman then fulfilled a dream of his by moving to Israel and signing a 3-year contract with Maccabi Tel Aviv on 22 July 2002. To get more playing time, he was loaned to Giv'at Shmuel for the 2002-03 season, but he never got the playing time he expected, failing to meet the high expectations fans had for him. He then played in a lower league for Kiryat Ata in the 2003-04 season.
Haaretz version:
In 2002 he fulfilled what he described as a personal dream by immigrating to Israel, signing a three-year contract with Maccabi Tel Aviv. He was loaned for the 2002-2003 season to Givat Shmuel to get more playing time, but his performance continued to fall below expectations, eventually landing him at second-tier Kiryat Ata.
Either our article is a rip off of another that Haaretz is using, or they've used the article as a basis for theirs. Thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ57 10:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. Today I updated Ralph Klein (coach) with this Haaretz article, which also bears similarities. -- Nudve (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to Haaretz. Perhaps they'll read it and react. HG | Talk 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not fair but that is perfectly legal because they "paraphrase" wiki. But at least, they could specify wikipedia as their source. Ceedjee (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the legal aspect is the only important one here. If Haaretz authors heavily copy from Wikipedia, it also means that we should cite them less (or not cite them at all), because we could be citing ourselves. It creates a serious WP:RS issue. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 18:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct.
Any source of information that uses wikipedia is not a wp:rs source any more due to circular referencing
But what it means in practice is a little crazy... Ceedjee (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Ynhockey that the legal issue is not important. However, I don't think it really damages their reliability that much, given that the articles their citing are themselves well cited. Besides, the relevant information (i.e. the news item) we're relying on when citing them is original, and only the background is from Wikipedia. It's mostly just funny, I think. -- Nudve (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - good to know that our work is being used! I was actually about the use the Haaretz article to cite some of the background info in the article (particularly the controversial part about him thinking his coach was anti-semitic) until I noticed that it would effectively be a circular reference... пﮟოьεԻ57 10:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a hoax. Doesn't really make sense. The book referred to doesn't seem to exist. Can anyone show evidence to the contrary? -- Nudve (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the procedure should be fairly simple: ask the creating editor for additional sources and/or other proof, if there's no reply within a reasonable time period (say, 7 days), AfD the article as a hoax. I don't think there will be much trouble with the AfD if no evidence comes up. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the creator's last edit was made in January 2007. Since then, references were requested at the article and its talk page. -- Nudve (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is set to be displayed on the front page in the DYK section but the article's creator just got indef blocked. Any chance someone knowledgeable about Israel could give the article a quick once-over and let me know if it is okay? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Lots of stuff in there which could be tagged with {{fact}}, e.g. the statement "For example, the hiloni of Israel often observe some traditional practices in a limited way, such as lighting Shabbat candles, limiting their activities on Shabbat, or keeping kosher to some extent, all of which are rare among American Reform Jews, and unheard of among American Jews who describe themselves as secular.", which has three unverified claims (often, rare and unheard of). I was also surprised to see no mention of Shinui or Hetz or the Marriage in Israel debate. пﮟოьεԻ57 10:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57 is right. The article seems to juxtapose Hiloni next to Haredi. But this ignores a wide plethora of groups in between, such as the Religious Zionism and the hard to define Masorti ("traditional") category. Besides, wasn't Herzl Austrian? -- Nudve (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds like the article has problems. I'll see that it doesn't get featured, thanks for the advice. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prime Minister Infobox
User:Shevashalosh asks to change the infobox so that a tab would read "Acting Prime Minister" instead of "Deputy". I'm not sure whether that can (or should) be done, and how. I'm posting the discussion here so that members with more experience with editing templates can comment:
Hi Nudve,
I'd like to ask you, if you know where Israeli Prime minister infobox is located (the one used for olmert's article)?
There are two things i'm cocerned about:
1) is the "Deputy" section, which states as if Tzipi Livni is the the deputy Prime Minister -instaed of Acting Prime Minister
2) second, the dates now are correct, but the infobox looks bad - so i'd like to add more section title by add "additional paramenter" title:
Acting Prime Minister =
I know in Hebrew wikipedia you can add an additional parameter title:
{{Additional parameter|Acting Prime Minister|[[Tzipi Livni]]}}
Which article do you want to change? Olmert, Livni, or the template? I don't think this parameter is mentioned in any other PM or acting PM. Anyway, I believe the infobox is Template:Infobox Officeholder. You can bring this up to discussion there. -- Nudve (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Olmert I want to change:
1) says - deputy PM: Tzipi Livni. she is the minister of Acting PM, Deputy is an honorary title, hers is assuming office in any event that olmert cant function.
2) On Hebrew wikipedia there is an option not to change template, but add "additional title parameter:
{{Additional parameter|Acting Prime Minister|[[Tzipi Livni]]}}
other then that, I'd like to make some logical order - to make it look, not only correcet, but rather nice looking as well.
help me find the location of this infobox! and help me on my question regardin adding "additional paramenet title", this is easy to add to to a template without changing it's basic formula.
Livni isn't the acting prime minister. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that 'acting' is used when the prime minister can't perform his duties, not when he potentially can't perform them. For example, when Sharon was active, Olmert was the deputy PM, while when Sharon was incapacitated, Olmert became the acting PM. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite confusing, but she is indeed Acting Prime Minister (I found out when trying to write Deputy leaders of Israel) - see the Knesset list of ministers. Apparently you get the title even when you're not actually acting; when you act as PM you are the caretaker... пﮟოьεԻ57 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No - this is again a mistake. If the PM is dead, then The minister of acting PM - becomes the Acting PM (assumes PM office immdiatlly). however, If the PM is is ill (example: Sharon having a stroke), then the minister of acting PM, becomes the "caretker for PM", thus, not assuming office until 100 day passed, in which the ill PM is declared "permenantlly incapacitated", thus, out of office, and only then the minister of acting PM - can becom Acting PM (in office)
By anycase, can you help me on this one ...?? I put on my talk page a link to a new template i'm trying to write, based on olmert's - only with the additional parameters - i mentioned in the above. But my obly probelm is that I don't know how to create a new template ...? can you help me create a new templaye... ?
I fear that article will bring many problems and edit wars when it will be found by what may be called : ideological opponents of [Neo-]Zionism.
That would not be bad if some of us here could try to neutralize this "a little bit" and improve the article.
This article must be in wikipedia because it gives a relevant point of view of Israeli society internal debate but -I think- not in the current way it is written.
I don't think I am the best editor to take care of this; reason why I post this message here... Ceedjee (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this article should stay as it meets WP:BK. It does seem to have neutrality issues, although there's no discussion, so the tag violates WP:DRIVEBY. That said, I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on its content. -- Nudve (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add the flag but I will not remove this either. It has been added by a RC patroller : Toddst1.
The WP:NPoV issues are in the way the book is contextualized.
The article sounds as if this book was stating the truth and it links to the other articles with this bias. It is also poorly written.
I agree, and have posted a message regarding this on ShevaShalosh's talk page. -- Nudve (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support :-) Ceedjee (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very problematic. First of all, the book itself: the book is unavailable in any Israeli bookstore, and was not published by any of the mainstream publishing houses in Hebrew (the book has not been translated into English, though the reference in the article suggests that there is an English version). It appears to be self-published, though I can't state that for sure. I have been unable to find out who Alim publishers are (they don't appear in the phone book), and I can't really research this until after the weekend. The book has not been reviewed in any of the major Israeli popular or academic publications. All the references to it are by organizations which are representative of the right wing, and even extreme right wing, of Israeli politics. The Jabotinsky prize, for example (which the book won), is granted by "Misdar Jabotinsky", an organization affiliated with the right-wing Likud party. The award is not one that is associated with any recognized academic institution.
Secondly, according to several of the sources quoted in the article, the article does not exactly represent the entire thesis of Milstein's. In spite of Milstein's inflammatory title, he does not suggest that massacres were not committed by the Israelis during the 1948 war. On the contrary, Milstein contends in the book that one of the main motivations was to draw attention away from a different massacre, at Ein Zeitoun, near Zefat, committed a week prior to Deir Yassin, by the Palmach - a massacre that until Milstein's book was completely undocumented. (This information is from http://hydepark.hevre.co.il/topic.asp?topic_id=2191820&forum_id=99 - take it for what it's worth).
Third, Uri Milstein is himself a very problematic figure. Here is what Gideon Samett, editor of the Haaretz newspaper, writes about him: "Uri Milstein is almost entirely outcast by publishers, not to mention the academic establishment. He has not succeeded in establishing himself in a single respectable academic institution." (http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/objects/pages/PrintArticle.jhtml?itemNo=849474) Samett, incidentally, was arguing that Milstein actually should be given a voice in the academic world.
All of which is not to say that there might not be some grain of truth in what Milstein says. I have no way of evaluating this without at least reading the book - something that no one in this discussion, including the author of the article, has done. And, with a $99 price tag (from Uri Milstein's personal website - the only place I could find it available) and no copies available in libraries, that is not something I plan to do any time soon.
I would suggest that, given the difficulty in verifying the content of the article, and given the clear bias of the supporting sources, this article should be deleted. At best, the book could be mentioned in the context of the Deir Yassin massacre. --Ravpapa (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Later: Oops, I see it is mentioned in Deir Yassin massacre. I think that reference is enough. --Ravpapa (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like an advertisement for the book, not like an encyclopedia article. It's also a diatribe ("one the most anti-Semitic Libels in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute over a war battle episode, during Israel's war of Independence, and accusation of a 'massacre', which were never proven in court or never even been filed a lawsuit on any such basis"). The book seems to be notable, but the article is a mess. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Milstein has some (and even much) credit in the academic world and his books are/were used as references in several historians books. So, I didn't expect this one was self-published and more... impossible to get in libraries.
That is a problem and deletion could be discussed indeed.
I think it is interesting because he is the only purely neo-zionist historian and some scholars refer to this new historiography (as a sociological phenomenon) but that is maybe not enough for wikipedia.
I still think this article is terribly bad and unencyclopaedic and I don't succeed in discussing with shevashalosh.
The book can be found in Israeli bookstores. I agree, as I said, that the article does have neutrality problems. Shevashalosh said he has a copy of the book, but hasn't provided page references. Unless this is fixed, the article might be construed as a coatrack for a Revisionist Zionist account of the Deir Yassin incident. -- Nudve (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the article a rewrite without, I think, changing any of its substance. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I put a neutrality tag on it while this is sorted out. Gatoclass (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly was Malik Shabazz's rewrite reverted? -- Nudve (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the MOS says "be bold", so I was bold. I rewrote the lead of the article. Now, no doubt, everyone will be mad at me. Ah, me, so it goes. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20 minutes later: Wow, that was quick! Shevashalosh has reverted me. So it goes. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, boy...Anyway, I still think my revision, on top of Malik Shabazz's edits, should be the version to build on, until actual content from the book (rather than about the book) is introduced. -- Nudve (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's becoming clear to me that the article isn't about Milstein's book. It's Shevashalosh's attempt to write his own article about the Deir Yassin massacre without the trouble of achieving consensus at that article. I left a note at the article's Talk page. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ceedjee keepts deleting the name war of Independence at Wars of Israel
He keeps dleting the name "war of independence to 1948 Palestine War. For NPOV I included both names.
