Talk:Elyashiv

Naming conventions

First of all, congrats for creating this and other locality articles :)

Now the question: shouldn't this article be named Elyashiv, per transliteration? Or is this the common name? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Kh. ash Sh. Muhammed?

Isn´t this the village named Kh. ash Sh. Muhammed on SWP map 10? (SWP II:135)? Huldra (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for sure. The tomb of Sh. Muhammed appears in 1940s maps right on the north edge of Elyashiv. Exactly how the story evolved, I didn't determine yet. Zero^talk 01:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I see "Esh Sh. Muhammed" on a 1924 map. Also on 1941 map that shows Elyasiv right on top of the Esh Sh. Muhammed location. Zero^talk 01:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Likely to be part of the Wadi el Hawarith purchases of the late 1920s. Can you see anything relevant in the 1922 census? Zero^talk 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It should have been on Tulkarem-pages in 1922, p. 27 or 28... but it is not there.

Elyashiv in 1945: Department of Statistics, 1945, p. 20, or Hadawi, 1945, p. 74

Btw, I´m looking for the Adler (Cohen), Raya-article mentioned on Wadi al-Hawarith... It might be relevant, Huldra (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Check your email. That article has a map showing the location was part of the Wadi al-Hawarith purchases, but I don't see Kh. ash Sh. Muhammed mentioned there. I looked in some other sources about Wadi Hawarith and didn't see it there either. Zero^talk 13:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I note that Adler's article says "The last tenants evacuated the remaining lands of Wadi Hawarith on November 13, 1933", which is exactly the same day which the moshav counts as its founding. It can hardly be a coincidence but I don't see a source. Zero^talk 11:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read up on WP:OR When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And please look at a map, Huldra (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What part of Original research did you not understand? Do I need to explain to you how an editor looking at a map, seeing a place name in the same approximate location as another place name and concluding that the two are one and the same constitutes original research? Find a reliable source that links Elyashiv to this place name if you want to include it in the article. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The large scale map I can produce shows the outline of Esh Sh. Muhammed with the boundary of Elyashiv actually surrounding it. Both clearly labeled on the same map. The map does not indicate the historical relationship between the two villages or their inhabitants, but it shows the location of the two to be exactly the same. When I get time I'll upload a scan. No interpretation is required and there is no reason this information can't be put in the article. Zero^talk 13:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Without a source that explains the relationship between the two place names, what you describe above is your personal original research . I don't mind you adding a scan of a map of Elyashiv, but any text you add about Kh. ash Sh. Muhammed without supporting text tying it to Elyashiv will be deleted. You know better then that. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A reliable map showing two names in the same place is a reliable source for them being in the same place. Reading is not original research. Your grasp of the rules is not so good. Zero^talk 00:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

We'll take it to a notice board and we'll see. You know and I know that what you are doing is original research. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you find a policy or guideline that maps can't be used as sources, please show it to us. Actually it is so common that there is even a template for it that is used many thousands of times. Meanwhile, instead of trying to censor properly sourced information you should be looking for additional sources. Zero^talk 02:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The policy is called WP:OR, whose first paragraph reads "to demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. " If you have difficulty understanding it, I will be happy to help. You are confused as to who should be looking for sources to support their original research. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

So you do know why a map is a reliable source if it contains the information. I was beginning to doubt it. By the way, here is a real example of OR: part of the Muslim cemetery, including the tomb of "Sheikh Mohammed", is still there in a vacant lot in the middle of the moshav and can be visited on Google Street View; how about that? Zero^talk 10:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to dispel any lingering doubt as to who is failing to understand Wikipedia policy here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#connecting_two_place_names_using_a_map}: "It is not appropriate for Wikipedians to look at two maps and say "this old map has X name so that must be a previous name for this settlement." When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to dispel any doubt as to what sort of editor When Other Legends Are Forgotten is, check for yourself whether the single sentence cited to the map and the single sentence consequential to it make up "nearly 50% of the article" as it claimed at WOLAF. I'm compiling these examples. Zero^talk 07:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Zero apparently is having difficulty following timelines, or perhaps trying to deceive editors who have not followed closely what was going on here. When I posted my query on the appropriate noticeboard on Nov 16, I was referring to this version of the article [1] - which he was reverting to. That version had 50% of the history dealing with an irrelevant place name. 50% of the references were sources that pre-date the article's topic by at least 50 years, and 50% of the bibliography used references from the 19th century. He justified this based on some horrendous original research, as confirmed by the above-linked noticeboard discussion. He of course knows that, and he knows full well he was grossly abusing wikipedia's original research policy when he performed that revert. Thus, he subsequently toned down that gross violation, to the somewhat acceptable version that exists in the article today. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You didn't date your ORN request, which was the source of my mistake. But you were still wrong about the 50%, it was actually 31%. Reading this page one can see two editors working quite hard to determine the facts and find the best possible sources for them, and we can see you trying to suppress the facts with dubious wikilawyering presented with arrogance and puerile insults. Zero^talk 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We now have 3 uninvolved editors on that noticeboard, all of whom have told you clearly that what you are doing is original research. Time to walk away, and start editing appropriately, if you are capable, or leave this topic area if you are not. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

More distortion. And thanks for your advice but I've been here much longer than you and I'll still be here long after your topic ban. Zero^talk 04:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Red pen of Doom:: It is not appropriate for Wikipedians to look at two maps and say "this old map has X name so that must be a previous name for this settlement."

@Mangoe:: I can see "near", not "on the site of". Really, for that we need a text source which says that.

Scoobydunk: it is a violation of WP:OR to look at a map, or multiple maps, and draw conclusions from them.

@Scoobydunk:: drawing your own conclusions from looking at maps is a violation of WP:OR

It really does not get any clearer than this, I don't care how long you've been editing. Perhaps it's time to actually read and understand Wikipedia policy after all this time. If you continue it is you who will be topic banned. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: WOLAF: I´m sure it was just an oversight that you only pinged those who agreed with you, and not anyone who disagreed. Amended, now. Huldra (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is trolling, pure and simple. Zero^talk 00:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a question: does the map have coordinates somewhere? Perhaps we could check them and see whether the "Elyashiv" on the map is same as the "Elyashiv" of the modern day. This would perhaps alleviate concerns about WP:OR. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Survey of Palestine maps of that scale showed the Palestine grid but not latitude and longitude. To see the original map, go here and select map 14-19.1941 (please let me know if you can see how to address it directly). The location is near the top left corner, at coordinates 142/198. You can check that is the right place by looking at a lower scale map that has latitude and longitude marked as well as the grid, for example this one which incidentally shows the early buildings of Elyashiv in neat rows just like the photo in the Hebrew version of this article (which we should copy to commons and use ourselves). You can check that 142/198 is still the location of Elyashiv by going to amudanan here. Elyashiv ( אלישיב ) will be in the middle of the view and you can see the location in the old grid numbers by selecting the second item ( רשת ישנה ) from the pull-down menu just left of the location and elevation windows at the top right. The second number has 1,000,000 added to avoid negative numbers at the south of the country. I hope you'll agree that maps are wonderful ;). Zero^talk 05:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Back at the first web site, if you select map 14-19 instead of 14-19.1941 you'll see a 1930 version before Elyashiv existed. Zero^talk 05:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This page shows the latitude/longitude of the whole map. (E 34?30'--E 36?00'/N 33?15'--N 31?00') Is this what you meant? Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I see the 55' E longitude line going just east of Elyashiv on the map here. According the main WP page, modern-day Elyishav is 54'35'' E, so it seems close enough. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)