Talk:Ein Hod

Removing links
I think it is very disappointing that an editor spend his/her time removing links which are clearly within WP:RS, especially when the article is in great need for constructive work (now; it is e.g. partially contradictary; it says both that the original Inhabitants moved to a nearby wady, *and* that they ended up on the West Bank!). If people want to do something constructive on Wikipedia, the get hold of the Benvenisti book (or any other RS that writes about Ein Hods history), start *reading* and *add* that information. Instead of censoring out information. Thank you. Regards, Huldra 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC) PS. This is the first and only time I have heard that a website published by the Khalil Sakakini Cultural Centre is not an RS!


 * Huldra, i've treated this article with a great deal of respect in regards to the problematic external links such as "palestineremembered.com" and despite the more than obvious POV ("Ethnically cleansed 21,440 days ago") I kept that external link for encyclopedic value on such instances as "One mosque now restaurant or bar" and "Operation Shoter (Police)".


 * your insistance on reintroducing over and overalnakba.org,,same link again,and again more POV external linkage and removal of the Palestinian exodus link (i'm wondering what would be your reasonng for that move) don't give out a good impression for the way you edit this article.
 * If you have new and interesting information relating to a book, you can cite them and the ref page for the information. you can also write down more interesting information in the article such as the f.a.s.t. competition. However, that has nothing to do with branching out and linking more non WP:RS POV websites (http://www.alnakba.org/ - fairly POV presentation on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War).
 * Now, as i've allready mentioned in the reverts, one non WP:RS is enough for the added encyclopedic value and you should choose the one that is more informative/preffered/WP:RS in your eyes. as for the multiple stubs "fad" of yours, i belive the bottom of the article has a "This geography of Israel article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.", now you can add a palestinian stub to that Israeli stub, however, adding these "left-out" stubs with dates makes the article unreadable and shows lack of seriousness on your part. If you want to add info, you can do it, these stubs are interffering more than they will help an future editor add to the article and they compromise the current state of the article.
 * Last note is on the issue of the F.A.S.T. contest. you should add some text about it rather than just externally link to it, the point behind Wikipedia is encyclopedic information not politically motivated linkage.
 * Last last note, you should consider making changes to your last revert per this talk (i'm not saying we resolved everything) to avoid POV edit warring escalation. Jaakobou 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Moshav
Added a bit to include the short lived Moshav.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ein Hod. 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/20160303210033/http://www.emunah.org/magazine_detail.php?id=55 to http://www.emunah.org/magazine_detail.php?id=55
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303210033/http://www.emunah.org/magazine_detail.php?id=55 to http://www.emunah.org/magazine_detail.php?id=55

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Two infoboxes
I think that two infoboxes are excessive to an article (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, WP:INFOBOXUSE). There are some information that could be merged into one infobox, the remain info should be mention inside the paragraphs. But using two infoboxes is not looking good. We can keep both maps though. Sokuya (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, particularly as the village has been settled continuously.Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we can remove the top infobox, if you like, but I would strongly oppose removing the lower infobox. It makes pertinent info readily available, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One typically has an infobox for the present status of a settlement, not for each previous group that might have been there at some point.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a typical settlement though. The present status of a settlement box would totally ignore the hundreds of years of Palestinian history this place had up until 1948. If you want to split it in two, I am open for discussion (though presently I am tending towards one article, as many of the post 1948 inhabitants actually live in the houses of the pre 1948 inhabitants.) Huldra (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Most settlements with a history of hundreds of years changed hands, and inhabitants, a number of times. This does not warrant a separate infobox. Previous occupants should be described in the relevant history section.Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Template:Infobox Former Arab villages in Palestine doesn't support of serval parameters like: website, current population, Council and etc. Therefore I suggest we keep the top Infobox. The article already containing the data of the historical Palestinian village in the History section. I think we should keep the 1870s map as a thumb picture. Sokuya (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm: "Most settlements with a history of hundreds of years changed hands []  a number of times" Hmm no, (Not outside Israel, at least).  And the Infobox Israel village does not support  several parameters like: Date of depopulation, Cause(s) of depopulation, etc. I understand that some people want to censor away all previous Palestinian history, but this article (and several like it) has lived well with two infoboxes for years. Expect a major fight (at least a RfC) before that is changed, Huldra (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Open a 500 year world map and you will clearly see most settlements on the globe changed hands more than once. Settlements in wiki have a single infobox - reflecting the currentnday situation. The second infobox is misleading.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The rulers might have changed, but whole population transfer is something completely different.(And much, much more rare.) If you want to change the infobox situation, then start a RfC ..as this issue involves more than this article. Huldra (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)