Talk:Imwas

message: Lots more pictures can be freely uploaded from the Matson collection here. Including a lot of Edward  Keith-Roach with the villagers. And this one from between 1900-1920, shows exactly the same structure as the modern picture of "Ruins of Byzantine church, Canada Park" here:  Canada Park. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures! 

message: Presently, the info that Israel offers compensation is in the lead. I think this is WP:UNDUE, in an article on a place with such a long and rich history as Imwas. Also, is is sourced to:
*1: Oren, 2002, p. 307
*2: Segev, 2006, pp. 306-309
*3: Wiles, Rich (2010). Behind the Wall: Life, Love, and Struggle in Palestine. Potomac Books. p. 20.
*4: Interview: Ahmad Abughoush: "Imwas : Canada Park's Concealed Crime "
*5:  Segev, 1967, p. 82.
*6: Mayhew and Adams, 2006.
For a start: Former Israeli ambassador Oren mentions it, yes, (that is source 1). But I cannot find it in source 2: Segev. I am not familiar with source 5, but I somehow doubt that an authoritative study was written so close after the events.  And source 6 is pretty useless, as it lacks page-numbers. Will the person who insisted on having this in the lead fix it?  Huldra (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oren is a professional historian, and his academic history book was published by Oxford University , no less. This kind of well poisoning is ludicrous.  Sources 3 and 4, both Palestinian, confirm that compensation was offered. If we mention that the villagers were expelled in the lead, we can also mention that compensation for their expulsion was offered I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never said he should not be in the article (though I always see him presented as "former Israeli ambassador to US", these days, never as "historian" (here, e.g.)), what I object to is cherry-picking one part of his book and  putting in the lead. Huldra (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

text: We have two Segevs here: Segev, 1967, p. 82 refers to  Samuel Segevs book published in 1967. (Only available in Hebrew, I believe, and apparently a best-seller in its day.) And as I tried to say above: I doubt an authoritative study  of the war was made that close after the events.  You are correct about the Tom Segev page-numbers. Huldra (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

text: There's no source stating that the offer was made some time later. In contrast , there's a source that says it was made during the event. if we are going to detail  the expulsion in the lead, there's no reason not to mention that compensation was offered and refused, other than POV-pushing. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which source says it was made during the event? Zerotalk 04:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Palestinian sources. Which one says it was at a later time?I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rich Wiles: "Those who remained in the West Bank formed a committee.." (that was offered compensation).  Ahmad Abughoush: "after the expulsion in 1967, the Israeli military commander in the area asked to meet".  Wrong both times. Please read more carefully. Zerotalk 09:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps you should read more carefully There no indication of time in either of these sources. "after the expulsion" could mean 5 minutes later, or 5 years later.I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you think they formed a committee 5 minutes after they were expelled? Hardly likely. Huldra (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea how formal this "committee" was, and I have no problem imagining that in the immediate aftermath of the expulsion, the local military commander asked for representatives to negotiate compensation, and that within minutes the villagers sent over the mukhtar along with a few other dignitaries to represent them. You are of course free to image something else- but that is not in the sources you cite. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's completely bizarre and incompatible with the story told by the sources and also incompatible with the sources that say the expulsion was done by the military without orders from the government. Compensation has to come from the government, even if the military is assigned to negotiate it. Zerotalk 10:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

text: For me it boils down to this: in a place with such a long history, it is undue weight to have this in the lead. I think the offer of compensation (and the accompanying demands)  should be mentioned, but under the events in 1967, Huldra (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The expulsion and compensation for it are part and parcel of the same event. Mentioning only the expulsion is a violation of NPOV. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No: it was the expulsion which was noted internationally; the  compensation offer later (with conditions such that apparently no-one(?) accepted it) were not. Also, if the Israeli newspapers of the time reported the "flight" as "voluntarily"; why on earth should Israel offer compensation if people left by they own free will? Huldra (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The compensation offer was noted in an academic book by oxford university press- it does nto get more "international" than that. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  Both the sources Invented mentioned indicate clearly that the compensation offer came later, at least days if not weeks  or months.  Combined with other aspects of the story (that they were not even told they couldn't return until at least a week later), days is impossible, and only weeks or longer remain. Zerotalk 22:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite. But I think Invented wants us to believe that (to quote him): "The expulsion and compensation for it are part and parcel of the same event." So the Israelis expelled and offered compensation at the same time as they gave the Israeli newspapers stories about the villagers leaving .......voluntarily. Which makes absolutely no sense at all, to me. Huldra (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

text: The printed edition I have is by Metropolitan Books, not Abacus Books, so potentially the pagination is different.  In my edition, those pages are irrelevant. The "straggling along" quotation is on p407, but I note there also exists an electronic edition with different pages. I'll look more later; I'm out of time at the moment.  Zerotalk 00:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:UNDUE]] 

message: We have a good article on Emmaus covering the biblical site (and its possible locations), and good coverage of the archaeology at Canada Park. The articles Emmaus Nicopolis and Imwas tell the same story with the same information. An additional problem is that there was never a place called "Emmaus Nicopolis"; Nikopolis was simply a temporary name for Emmaus/Imwas, like Aelia was for Jerusalem. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: Some sort of merger, possibly the above iteration. The three-page status quo is an obvious mess. Perhaps a merger of all the historical content here, leaving the not yet positively identified bible stuff at Emmaus (biblical place). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I will proceed with the merge of Emmaus Nicopolis to Emmaus, as that seems to be the direction of consensus. We can then figure out how to delineate between Emmaus and Imwas. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal with [[Emmaus Nicopolis]] 

message: The discussion seems to be drifting towards a merge of Emmaus Nicopolis to Emmaus, perhaps Emmaus#Emmaus-Nicopolis/Imwas. Given this, I've tagged the Emmaus page in order to see whether readers there have a view.Klbrain (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: Some sort of merger, possibly the above iteration. The three-page status quo is an obvious mess. Perhaps a merger of all the historical content here, leaving the not yet positively identified bible stuff at Emmaus (biblical place). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I will proceed with the merge of Emmaus Nicopolis to Emmaus, as that seems to be the direction of consensus. We can then figure out how to delineate between Emmaus and Imwas. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised proposal