Talk:Eshhar

I cannot reference the claim that the members of the garin came from Chicago in particular. Few of the original group which formed Eshhar remain and, from talking to the remaining "veterans" it doesn't appear to be the case. Does anyone have any information? --Mlevitt1 (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have now found a reference and will add it to the article. --Mlevitt1 (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is it relevant to mention the role of scouts in a community such as Eshhar?
Is it relevant to mention the role of scouts in a community such as Eshhar? I am posting this RFC after discussion with another editor on their Talk page Mlevitt1 (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Some more detail. In editing the page which Number_57 had established, I wanted to expand and update the detail given, especially about the facilities and ideology of Eshhar, a co-operative community settlement in the Galilee. I have particular knowledge as a resident, but also recognize a potential for conflict of interest or perceived bias. Nevertheless I believe that the following statement, or something similar, should be included in the section "facilities": "The Eshhar Scouts, in which a majority of the village's children take part, is the second troupe in Israel to bring together religious and secular Jews, and the only one in the North of Israel." The reason is that it is an example of the ideology of the place (as described in "history" - and one equal if not greater than the example of the attempt to run the pluralistic Meguvan school, since the scouts is successful and incorporates almost all the 200-odd kids whereas the school was only for a proportion of elementary-age kids, and failed.  Although I understand Number_57's opinion that a scout group is not notable enough to be mentioned in an article, I believe that in this case it is one of the most notable features of the place, owing to it demonstrating and passing on through the children (on a nearly-daily basis) the pluralistic ideology that is central to the place.   I would appreciate any comments.   --Mlevitt1 (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC) That's fair enough; the problem with these small places is that there is very little in the way of sources, even in Hebrew. The source I have for my proposed sentence about the scout troupe is here. Although there are other sources which evidence the existence of the Eshchar troupe, at present I cannot find other sources in Hebrew or English regarding the unique mixed nature of the troupe. Nevertheless, for an article of this type I believe this is sufficient in the interests of providing information beyond the basic stub by which it originated. Mlevitt1 (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No I don't believe scout groups are notable enough to be mentioned in articles. As I stated in my conversations with Mlevitt1, I believe this information (particularly in the way it is being presented) is more appropriate for a village website, not an encyclopedia – there is a slight tinge of promotionalism about it. Number   5  7  10:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: given the population of the place is about 672 people, scout details might be adequate to mention. What we need to consider is the quality and the quantity of sources discussing this. If you'd present a few we might be able to provide some more feedback. Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  01:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, not too much feedback; but I have re-introduced mention of the scouts in a different way as an example of attempts to entrench the ideology of Eshchar: we now have one which succeeded (the scouts) and one which failed (the school). Separately, I have also clarified about the school; it passed me by when Number 57 originally made changes referring to the school being in Moreshet. There was initially such a school in Eshchar, which was forced to close. There was then one planned in Moreshet ,which never got off the ground. This is referenced in the original reference. Mlevitt1 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, basically there was no consensus for your change, and no proper sources, but you've made it anyway? I'm afraid I have reverted it.
 * I am also concerned by the change of wording you made to the text about the school – changing it from "opposed by both the Ministry of Education and the Regional Council" to "lack of support from both the Ministry of Education and the Regional Council". These are quite different things, and the source (Haaretz) is clear that the venture was actively opposed by both organisations. This attempted wording change (also reverted) suggests to me you are attempting to downplay the reasons behind the failure to get the school opened. Number   5  7  18:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be concerned about opposed versus lack of support, it was inadvertent and "opposed" is fine by me, though you could argue the other way given that the ministry was quoted (I think) as saying it might resurrect something in the future, but let's leave it at that! About the scouts, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet, but then maybe you feel I do too! A couple of things. Just because I couldn't attract enough comments to reach consensus doesn't mean it shouldn't be in; and plenty of articles have statements with a single source which might not be the best but is the only one available. I don't see how you can say it isn't a proper source: it is the official website of a co-operative yishuv kehilati with legal status and operated by an elected committee (of which I am not a member by the way). But putting all that aside and getting back to basics. This is not about scouts per se for me. My motivation is to put flesh on the bones of the assertion that Eshhar was set up as a community in which religious and secular could live together, and continues to work to achieve that. There are two big examples that can in any way be referenced: one the school, the other the scouts. The day-to-day evidence other than that can be seen by visiting, but is anecdotal and cannot be referenced. To me, this is important because Eshhar stands out. The vast majority of such small communities are religious or secular or reform or traditional or vegetarian or whatever, or if they have different groups then they live and socialise separately; Eshhar is one of very few that try to be pluralist in this way. That is what gives it an importance that, otherwise, I would agree it shouldn't have. I changed the context of mentioning the scouts to reflect this better and did toy with the idea of moving the whole school'scout paragraph to History to reinforce that this isn't so much about facilities as being examples of the ideology of the community in practice. Instead of continually reverting me, can you not find a constructive response?Mlevitt1 (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * (Coming here due to the notice on AN) According to my judgment the inclusion of the scout group is warranted in this particular case. I have two reasons for this: First, I concur with that the joint activities of religious and secular Jews are a good example for the community's efforts to be inclusive. The reference is weak (because it is not independent) but for small hamlets this is often all that can be found. Second, and forgive me for lecturing an admin with 100,000 edits, notability is not the same as noteworthiness, as outlined here: Notability. So the question is not notability but due weight---Is the mixed scout group an important aspect of Eshar? The settlement's web site argues that it is, and I have no reason to doubt this assessment. However, the way the scout group was described in earlier versions of this article is not acceptable because the phrasing was too close to the village web site's text. Hope that helps, (also pinging ) --Pgallert (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. You echo my regret about the reference but in the absence of anything better should not be a reason not to refer to this example of the community's inclusive approach. And thanks for pointing me to the clarification about notability, which is also helpful. I take your point about the description of the scout group in earlier versions, but I believe this was addressed in later ones, particularly my last revision. Practical attempts have been made to entrench the ideology of the village in its institutions. I would appreciate any further comments from in light of your comments with interest before I attempt a further revision. I also would be interested in any thoughts on moving the whole school-scout paragraph to History to reinforce that this isn't so much about facilities as being examples of the ideology of the community in practice, with which I increasingly think it should sit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlevitt1 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)