tagged for WP Israel |
→Birth of a town section dispute: new section |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
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) {{unsigned2| 20:16, 20 May 2007 | 88.153.94.221}} |
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) {{unsigned2| 20:16, 20 May 2007 | 88.153.94.221}} |
||
: 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! --[[User:Rich Janis|Rich Janis]] ([[User talk:Rich Janis|talk]]) 08:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
: 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! --[[User:Rich Janis|Rich Janis]] ([[User talk:Rich Janis|talk]]) 08:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Birth of a town section dispute == |
|||
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 about 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. |
|||
-- [[User:Ynhockey|Ynhockey]] <sup>([[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]])</sup> 17:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:44, 11 October 2008
Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
More angles on establishment?
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)
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)
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 (UTC)
- 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)
Birth of a town section dispute
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 about 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.