This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ashtul (talk | contribs) at 09:27, 19 January 2015 (→How is an opinion about the land being appropriated is more important then other current facts?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:27, 19 January 2015 by Ashtul (talk | contribs) (→How is an opinion about the land being appropriated is more important then other current facts?: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
Categories: