Talk:Carmel (Israeli settlement)/Archive 1

Dragging article into the I/P conflict
Yes, the article is about a settlement, and that fact is mentioned in the article. What do quotes about the nearby village have to do with it? the quotes are focused on the nearby village not on Carmel. The article isn't part of Israeli–Palestinian conflict or |WikiProject Palestine so why is it dragged there? This is WP:Biased. Ashtul (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the NYT article... If you did you would understand the relevance of it being included here. You should read it and think a little.Cathar66 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How is life condition of nearby Palestinians related to Carmel? It is a worthy subject but not in this article.Ashtul (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Carmel was built on land expropriated from those Bedouin of Um Kheir, who still live less than 30 metres from that residential area (the windows of the settlement turn inwards in order not to see them). It is not somewhere else.Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder how did you come up with "the windows of the settlement turn inwards in order not to see them". A quick search in all you sources don't come up with the word 'window' so...
 * You bring the quotes out of context. The proceeding text is unrelated to them. Also, the quotes don't about the land expropriation but about the fact they are not connected to electricity. What does that have to do with the settlement itself??? How is it relevant to someone looking for info about Carmel? The article isn't about I/P conflict. Ashtul (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "On the way back, we stop for a moment to examine the new buildings going up in Carmel. Three tractors are resting—today is Shabbat—across from the newest houses the settlers have built, all in standard Carmel style: yellow lego-like cubes, with almost no windows (the few windows that do exist all face inward, ghetto-like, to the settlement, away from the dizzy hills and, of course, away from Umm al-Khair)."
 * I don't make things up. I've studied that area for several years. David Dean Shulman, who is an expert on the area, mentioned that the land was expropriated from the Bedouin who still refuse to budge from the fringe outside its fences. One builds texts, particularly neglected ones like this, by adding, not by subtraction. And lastly, if you are laboring under the delusion that settlements on the West Bank have nothing to do with the I/P conflict even after months on this area inb Wikipedia, I suggest you haven't been reading the advice several editors have had to extend to you.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet, you chose to quote the parts that are unrelated to Carmel but the Palestinians. Am I missing something? Ashtul (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have enough on my shoulders just trying to build Palestinian materials without having to eat into my time handling every angle to Israeli related material in the I/P area. I intended to, but, as I have notified others, the articles I introduced have excellent material for many other aspects of Carmel, and had you read them, as you should have done, you would have seen that opportunity and jumped at expanding the article rather than editing out the one aspect you dislike. I can't do everything here. Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since when WP is an index of material about a subject. Most readers expect to enter, read some info and move on. Selecting the parts about the Palestinians is WP:BIASED not to mention the NYT quote was edited in by you 9 months ago and now you found time only to edit in some more info about Palestinians. Who are you kidding? Ashtul (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Just like I thought - it became another piece in Palestinian propaganda.
None of the editor will start an article about the Palestinians at Umm al-Kheir or an article about injustice. Instead, it becomes a stage for blackwashing a settlement. In my 'humble' opinion much of this, like the picture now added, is belong in a different article. Ashtul (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm al-Khair already excist, but is about something else. Eventually, all the red-listed articles on the Hebron--district-template, including Umm al-Khair, Hebron will get started. I am collecting facts on the Template talk:Hebron Governorate-page. But lots of the articles in that template  still needs work, so personally I am not keen on starting new articles when old articles are still missing so much stuff. Huldra (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So meanwhile you will just dump unrelated info in another article?Ashtul (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not unrelated, the source clearly mention Carmel. Huldra (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How is an opinion about the land being appropriated is more important then other current facts?
Please stop this pro-Palestinian madness and be professional. Ashtul (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, being pro-Palestinian isn't madness, but putting the weight of the whole conflict on each 'settlement' article IS pro-Palestinian madness. There can be pro-Israeli madness as well (though admitingly, it will probably be harder for me to detect). Ashtul (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A little bit of sense
Is it possible to agree a simple wording that notes the 2 communities adjoin and are only separated by a barbed wire fence and not descend into farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathar66 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Adjacent' is in the sources, so there's no problem with that. In any case, our editorial rule is simply to write according to sources, and most sources I know of when they mention one, mention the other. I haven't edited in much of what I've read on this because WP:Undue is affected if one only gives the Palestinian facts. (it is described by David Dean Shulman in his Dark Hope as a 'hardcore . .predatory' settlement (p.18). I'm holding back until editors describe its vibrant businesses (which however per Cheryl Rubenberg, The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace  p.176) are a major source, through industrial effluent, of pollution for the contiguous Palestinian villages in the area, even Yatta etc.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, I have created Umm al-Kheir, Hebron page in order to move there anything that isn't directly relevant to Carmel. Please let me know whether you want to do it yourself or me. Both quotes and pictures don't belong on Carmel page. If you disagree please let me know and we can use WP:DRN. Ashtul (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Move war
If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" in Wikipedia:Requested moves. This is wikipedia policy. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Umm al-Kheir with Carmel 'in the background'
Not sure why I need to argue the picture is hardly related to the article and has a a political element to it. I protested it when it came up about a month ago. Ashtul (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The settlement itself, on stolen land, is a political statement, like all settlements. Wikipedia does not welcome attempts to launder its topics into a simplified one-side-of-the-story picture book.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll put it slightly differently: what's obvious to ashtul is not obvious to all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, for this issues there are countless articles about the conflict. This article is about a town. It have the statement about int'l community etc. If anyone wants to add whatever other statements, go ahead. But a picture of the neigbouring Palestinians belong on THEIR article. Ashtul (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the picture had been *only* of Umm al-Kheir, then you would have had a point. However, it does´t. You can clearly see the Carmel buildings, too. The contrast is rather powerful, and I, for one, would argue it belongs in the article. Huldra (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The contrast is rather powerful and The settlement itself, on stolen land are clear WP:NPOV on your part which clearly makes my point. This is an article about a town, illegal by the int'l community which is clearly stated. Like I said, there are countless articles about the different issues in the conflict where it belongs. Ashtul (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, I´m glad you said it was clear WP:NPOV.  :) Huldra (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ashtul still things NPOV = someone's POV. But he is, here, correct, an image including both realities, Palestinian and Israeli, responds to NPOV as all other editors understand that.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct about my mistake of NPOV. for some reason it stuck in my head as Narrow-POV rather than Natural-POV. Back to it, statement such as The contrast is rather powerful and The settlement itself, on stolen land are clear sign of WP:BIASED.

But to the point, the picture is very legitimate in a page about I/P conflict whether it is West Bank or Palestinian Occupied Territories. Where it does not belong, is on a town page where it is clearly stated David Shulman claims the land belong to Palestinians. To then add a picture about the poor condition of neighboring village has very little to do with Carmel. They are not the one who decided to not connect them to electricity or to give them building permit. So while the subject is worthy, injecting it into Carmel is POVPUSH.

Just so you see my POV, it will be nonsense to add to Palestinian villages such as Beit Ummar or al-Arrub the fact Israelis complain on daily stone throwings. Ynet is WP:RS and it is actualy 'useful' information to warn traveler they might be endangered by 'freedom fighters'. So, should I go ahead? I believe in both cases the info is not encyclopedic in the sense it belong somewhere else. It isn't as related to town itself as this for example which I think is totally appropriate. Ashtul (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing to comment about here. We resolve textual problems based on good sources. There's little scope for opinionizing.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The un-sourced claim that "Carmel is in the background" because a half of a house that doesn't look like a shanty is in the corner of the picture? No way. The inclusion of the pic in this article is POV-pushing of the highest order. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 14:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC for 2nd picture and two quotes
There is a disagreement over 2nd picture with text 'In the background: Carmel' and two quotes comparing living conditions in an Israeli settlement and neighboring Palestinian village.

Some editors argue that since the two towns are almost attached the article should includes both realities, Palestinian and Israeli and that one can clearly see the Carmel buildings and the contrast is rather powerful thus WP:RELEVANT.

Other editors argue, both picture and quotes aren't about the settlement itself and are used for WP:POVPUSH. 17:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I would remove the 2nd picture - it barely shows Carmel. WP:IMAGE says "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. " - and this one is not. Those editors who argue in favor of it because it shows a contrast between Carmel and the ruins are actually arguing that we should push some POV with this image. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but that picture, and especially the caption accompanying it, is rampant POV-pushing and totally unacceptable ("she has to live in"). The picture might be OK if accompanied by a neutral and sourced caption. There would be a good argument that a settlement article should be accompanied by textual and visual representation of the repercussions of the settlement for Palestinians. But as presently framed, I'd remove it entirely. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no POV push. The Israeli settlement pushed into an area dwelt by Palestinians, who live on its margins. Ashtul's edits have tended to efface any mention of that well documented reality by presenting Carmel 8and other settlements) as they are photoshopped textually of the Palestinian reality in its immediate environment (created by the settlement). The caption should have a neutral description of course. A picture representing the contrast is fair per NPOV. Small adjustments are needed, not representational cleansing.(ps. Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a settlement. The fact the land is in dispute is clearly mentioned. The fact the nearby village is in poor shape has everything to do with I/P conflict and nothing to do with this specific settlement. It is great picture and great point just not relevant to this particular article. Ashtul (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but the tangential POV laden picture does not belong in this article as outlined above. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't belong. Kristof, a columnist, may use such a photo or story to illustrate his own views about the conflict in general, but that does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Precision123 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised the relevance isn't obvious. Others say they don't see it.  Well, I see it.  The point about adjusting the caption is sensible, but I don't see a case for removing the picture altogether.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we have sources to support any of it, though? I can certainly see the relevance, if sourced. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * These links are given on the uploaded picture: Umm al-Khair and Sadat al-Tha’ala, January 28 2012, Ta'ayush, (mentions Carmel);  New demolitions in Beduin village of Umm Al Kheer, January 25, 2012, Operazione Colomba (mentions Karmel);  youtube, from the same (mentions Karmel, and have good pictures of it.)  (AFAIK; Operazione Colomba was set up in its time by Pope John XXIII), Huldra (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see (a) where either link supports the information in the caption (the widow, etc) or (b) how either source would meet our standards of reliability. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, they are clearly activist sources, but there are a zillion activist sources here, sourced "According to". From what I can see, the Ta'ayush source say the same as the picture: "We meet the owner, a tall and handsome widow who serves us tea in a makeshift shelter next door." Further it notes she has 9 children: sounds as if it is the same to me. (How many widows with 9 children in Umm al-Kheir got their house destroyed that day? If there had been more than one, don´t you think the article would have noted that?) I agree that the original caption was not good, I tried to make it more NPOV, but is certainly open for changing the caption more. What about using the language of the  Ta'ayush-article? Huldra (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would remove the second picture, it seems to push a strong anti-Israel POV and as you need to see the picture full size to actually see Carmel, is not really relevant to the article. JackWilfred (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not long enough to use the picture. There is a Commons link for a reason.Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Carmel, Har Hebron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140801165150/http://reuta.org.il/about.asp?id=2 to http://www.reuta.org.il/about.asp?id=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)