Talk:Alma, Israel

‎moshav alma merom hagalil Safed israel‎
‎moshav alma merom hagalil Safed israel‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.31.160 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Articles "Alma, Israel" and "Alma, Palestine" are essentially about the same place, which describe different periods of Alma village in Galilee. I therefor propose a neutral geographic description "Alma, Galilee" as target article to merge both "Alma"s. Please vote Merge or Oppose, providing a reason for your choice.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge - I think there are a bunch of similar articles that need to be merged, so maybe centralized discussion at IPCOLL or whatever would be a good idea. I'm not sure "Alma, Galilee" would be the correct new title though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - these arent the same villages. The Palestinian village was depopulated in 1948 and a new village was created near, but not on, the site of the old village. Being a populated place near a formerly populated place does not make them essentially the same place.  nableezy  - 02:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Palestinian village was built in the 19th century near the ruins of the ancient village which was abandoned in the 17th century, but somehow the whole history of the site belongs in the Palestinian village article? Places being abandoned/depopulated and then re-established nearby with the same name is a common occurrence throughout history, and usually all the history of the place is mentioned in the article about the modern settlement, expanded if necessary to articles about older places. See for example Jericho. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is absurd. Who said that "The Palestinian village was built in the 19th century near the ruins of the ancient village which was abandoned in the 17th century"?  Nothing in the article indicates that. And, according to the article, Alma, Israel is built  0.5 km east of  Alma, Palestine. It has  also totally different land-ownership. These are two different places. If you honestly want to unite articles (about the same place), why not start with Nitzanim, Nitzanim Youth Village, & Nitzan? Those 3 articles are about the same location. If people want to unite the Alma-articles, but not the Nizan/Nizanim-articles: your POW shows.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.174.210 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — 41.130.174.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * We are still waiting the editors "who want to improve wikipedia" to suggest to merge Nitzanim, Nitzanim Youth Village, & Nitzan. 3 articles about the exact same place in a few decades?  Absurd, no?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.174.210 (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Those three links point to the same article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They didnt a few hours ago.  nableezy  - 06:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, they were merged by epicAdam. I restored however Nitzanim kibbutz, since it is a separate and notable existing locality, near Nitzan. The Nitzan and Nitzan Youth Village however were rightully merged, since Nitzan sits on top of Nitzan Youth Village. Anyway the reason to keep Nitzan (village) and Nitzanim (kibbutz) separate is only municipal, otherwise they should have been merged. It is not the case for Alma, but it is the case for Baqa ash-Sharqiyya and Baqa al-Gharbiyye.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when improving wikipedia is POV? and what is the POV about Alma, Galilee? Anyway 0.5km between the "Alma's" is a rediculous reason to create another article. We can create about 10 different articles on Damascus of different periods with slightly different locations - "Dameseq", "Roman Damascus", "Dimashq", "Modern Damascus" and so on. Same with Tiberias/Tveriya/Tabariya, Safed/Tzefat/Safad, Nablus/Neapolis/Shechem, Aleppo/Haleb, etc.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Shechem is not a good example, since the city name was entirely changed, not just prenounsation and possibly the location as well.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are separate article for Shechem and Nablus, and there should be for Alma, Palestine and Alma, Israel for the same reasons. Shechem was destroyed and Neapolis, the forebearer of modern Nablus, was not built at the same site and had an entirely different population settled in it. The same holds here as well. Different location, different population, different history, and most importantly treated separately and distinctly by the sources.  T i a m u t talk 21:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge For the reasons proposed by User:Greyshark09. These two settlements are related enough that it benefits the reader to understand the complete history of the area as an ancient settlement, a modern Palestinian settlement, and now an Israeli settlement. Far from being a totally different geographic areas that happen to share the same name, it is clear that each article is describing the same overall place. As a matter of practice, Wikipedia city articles describe a place in its totality, regardless of who is living there at any particular period of time. For example, the article on London encompasses the city's entire history from its earliest Celtic inhabitants through Roman invasion, Viking invasion, French Norman invasion, and into the "modern" era. There too, the Roman settlement of Londinium was eventually abandoned by the 5th Century. But then an Anglo-Saxon settlement of Lundenwic was formed about a mile way. Despite the slight change in location and differing populations, it's all a part of the overall history of London as a place. Other articles should be merged in a similar manner instead of being used as evidence that this one be kept separate. Best, epicAdam(talk) 01:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Greyshark09, NoMoreMrNiceGuy and Epicadam. The history and geography of cities, towns and villages in this country overlap, and the articles in question should be combined to reflect the mosaic that characterizes life in this part of the world. Separate entries are a disservice to reader, creating a distorted picture.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)