Talk:Kiryat Gat

message: The current title is Qiryat Gat.  I've only seen Kiryat used (in my very limited experience), and the unofficial city website is kiryat-gat.co.il.  Page move? Fireplace 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiryat or Qiryat? 

message: Sharrett to IDF CGS Dori in "most uncharacteristic language".
"The IDF's actions" threw into question "our sincerity as a party to an international agreement .... One may assume that Egypt in this matter will display special sensitivity as her forces saw themselves as responsible for the fate of these civilian inhabitants. There are also grounds to fear that any attack by us on the people of these two villages may be reflected in the attitude of the Cairo Government towards the Jews of Egypt".
Quakers Ray Hartsough and Delbert Replogle described the shooting (300 rounds of a machine-gun within a hundred yards of where we were sleeping) and treating the beatings. "Jane Smith (one of the Quaker party) has bandaged six men. The worst case was a man with two bloody eyes, a torn ear, and a face pounded until it was blue".
Benny Morris "Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited" p523
To remove the sources to such well known material is tantamount to vandalism. PalestineRemembered 06:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clearing of Qiryat Gat is also supported by the words of the Quakers and of Sharrett, Israeli Foreign Minister

message: what is al-faluja things? is it a poorly-written fact or just nonsense? Nielswik(talk) 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Faluja 

message: The well sourced material that used to be in on this page has been replaced by a statement that avoids the known facts of the case, and seeks to blame the victims. ie people who suffered terribly at the hands of the immigrants 50 years ago, and continue to suffer dreadfully now.
The facts are:
1) Al-Falujah (and it's neighbour Iraq al Manshiya) were specifically covered and protected by the agreement that Israel signed with Egypt in Feb 1949.
2) Al-Falujah was ethnically cleansed in a brutal fashion by the IDF (very shortly after the above agreement) and UN observers reported this to Ralph Bunch who reported it to the UN. The Quakers in the town reported it in detail and Moshe Sharret, the Foreign Minister of Israel, protested that Israel should abide by the International Agreements it had made.
3) None of this was an accident - in fact, a top Israeli historian says that the orders for this ethnic cleansing probabably came from David Ben-Gurion.
4) The bulldozers were sent in some 5 days later to destroy the villages, and we know that Yigal "Sasha" Allon ordered it.
5) There is no debate worth speaking of about what happened to these poor people. 
And it gets worse - since completely unsourced allegations of "aggression" are aimed at the people who were beaten out of their homes. I cannot believe that such a shocking allegation belongs in an encyclopedia. We'd not do it to the innocent victims at Lidice - so why are atrocities visited on Palestinians being denied here?  PalestineRemembered 19:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to support PalestineRemembered on this one. The last line of the article summary "...it is quite likely that many Arab residents were pressured to leave by Israeli forces, the unfortunate side-effect of years of Arab aggression." is an editorial judgement call that is entirely unsupported by any documented instances and actually seems to apologize for the events depicted in the referenced content that is being supressed. I notice the term "Al-Faluja" redirects to this article. While I understand that edit wars undoubtedly will erupt no matter what course is chosen, as a way of mitigating the current conflict I suggest the creation of a separate article on Al-Faluja that would allow that subject matter to be developed according to the usual WP quality and collaboration standards. I hope this course of action will not be viewed as more controversial than the current one. Best regards and wishes to all,--Amerique 09:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand and appreciate your offer of a compromise, it seems to me a serious dis-service to the encyclopedia to hive-off and conceal the horrific, recent (and still unsettled) history of this town. I challenge you to provide any similar example anywhere in the world where well known events of this nature are simply glossed over and buried in anodyne looking links. PalestineRemembered 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what you are talking about is what is happening currently within this article. It seems to me that the creation of a separate article on Al-Faluja would allow subject matter pertaining to that site to be adequately addressed, with similar attempts at suppresion more easily defended against. Neither this article nor the proposed one are likely to be particularly prominent on WP, but both articles can link to each other and other WP portals, projects or whatever. Best,--Amerique 21:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct - what is currently happening is that the horrific, recent history of this town is being glossed over and buried in anodyne looking links. Show me where else in the encyclopedia this is being done and you might win me round. In most places (I'm thinking particularily of Lidice, but I'm sure I could do the same with entries for eg native Americans) atrocities of this kind dominate the entry. It would seem natural for the same thing to happen with Qiryat Gat. Well, unless Wikipedia is paid for or otherwise subject to people who profited from this well-attested atrocity, of course. PalestineRemembered 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This was not an NPOV edit

message: I recommend splitting the page in order to a) avoid the issue of giving too much weight to events prior to the subject/article creation, b) proper article on pre-48 entity. I think Ashdod is also another candidate, but let's see how this goes. --Shuki 23:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you examined Article size, a guideline which suggests article splitting be considered first as an article grows above about 32K? This article was 6.5K in it's stable form, ballooning to 10K only when some editors doubted whether there was real proof of the claims. PalestineRemembered 15:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about length. The split is warranted because the extensive al-Faluja stuff is not about Kiryat Gat, but about a place that no longer exists. It should be in its own article. nadav (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: i tend to agree with nadav1 on this one, it's a new place and the old one simply doesn't exist anymore. same as you don't expect us to go over the articles of saudi arabia and start giving them inside articles about jewish villages of old days. Jaakobou 13:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Over at Gaza, an expelled population gets considerable coverage, with details of what happened to it - see Jewish communities in Gaza. So why are the Palestinians barely mentioned in this article? Their expulsion is within living memory, is known to have been carried out with maximum prejudice and is recorded in some detail. Furthermore, it's historically important, being the best recorded example we have of the Nakba, some 200 times bigger. And these villagers were guaranteed their safety by Israel in an agreement with Egypt, recorded by the UN. Currently, this article looks as if a significant historical incident has simply been white-washed. PRtalk 14:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that Kiryat Gat was not established until after 1955.  This was 7 years after the 1948 Palestinian exodus (or, as PalestineRemembered refers to it, "the Nakba").  The events that took place in this area during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus and its aftermath are all in the Al-Faluja article where they belong.  --GHcool 17:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that if the enthusiasts for Lebensraum had rebuilt on and changed the name of Lidice we'd not document what happpened to the original inhabitants? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to understand Wikipedia policy on documenting historical incidents. PRtalk 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison is not a fair one because Kiryat Gat was not "rebuilt on" al-Faluja, but rather built nearby al-Faluja, within the "Faluja pocket." --GHcool 02:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on this - which is the result I got for Lidice. Those look exactly like ruins to me, and they're certainly not covered by the the modern buildings, which are some distance away. In Kiryat Gat's case, the satellite picture shows the modern town directly abutting ruins of al-Falujah, as if other foundations are under new buildings. They're the same town and should be treated as such. PRtalk 15:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: PR, thanks for the interesting picture. It really looks like the new village was built adjacent to the ruins. Can anyone confirm if the original Kiryat Gat was built adjacent to the ruins (like 50 metres) or at what distance? 'Nearby' would otherwise mean a few kilometres. --Shuki 19:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that mound supposed to be the ruins of al-Faluja? It looks like just a mound with some kind of structures on it.  Claiming that it represents the ruins of a pre-1948 Arab village is kind of a stretch based on that image.  Its not that I don't believe you, PalestineRemembered, its just that the picture doesn't prove your point.  Even if whatever is on that mound really are the ruins of al-Faluja, isn't it equally likely that "the rest of" al-Faluja was on the east side of that little mound and Kiryat Gat was built on the west side? If you're going to prove that Kiryat Gat was built on top of Al-Faluja, you're going to have to do better than that.  --GHcool 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoa, I thought the sat pic was of Lidice. The picture is instead somewhere closer to Beit Shemesh, a place not near Kiryat Gat at all. PR, could you please clarify the discrepancy. --Shuki 11:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare with Gaza 

message: You can't tie a person to a city because he or she once lived there.
As far as I know, she's no longer a resident of this town and therefore should not be included. Northern (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. The notable residents' section is also for past residents (included deceased). Check out other pages.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Ninet Tayeb still a resident of Qiryat Gat? 

message: This reference was removed due to the URL appearing unacceptable:
 <ref name="All that Remains">
While the domain has since been taken over by a Japanese website, the archived page is still available at . Apparently the same reference is still being used for the same fact(s), it just doesn't have the actual text about the particular village. Described on Amazon as an "authoritative reference work". This comment is so that if someone wants to know what the book says without actually buying it, they can. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They should buy the book if they want to know what the book says.  They shouldn't rely on unacceptable sources.  --GHcool (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, why do you feel it's unacceptable? 50.135.249.113 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  jerusalemiloveyou.net is not the type of source we regard as reliable on their own say-so.  On the other hand, provided that an editor has checked that the text matches the real source (the book of Khalidi, which is not on-line), it is not necessarily wrong to link to jerusalemiloveyou.net at the same time.  See WP:Convenience link for an essay about this type of thing; but not everyone agrees. Zerotalk 11:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this judgement based purely on the URL, or domain name? If it's based on the fact that the editors of the site were likely not being paid for their work, and would not have a financial penalty for making mistakes, Wikipedia has no policy that states that unpaid work is unreliable. 2601:8:9780:1EE:9DCF:D73F:4122:2B53 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: jerusalemiloveyou.net does not have a reputation for fact checking or editorial oversight.  See WP:QUESTIONABLE.  --GHcool (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How did you make this determination? 2601:8:9780:1EE:4058:55D0:A1B1:D756 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

text: The link was dead, last time I checked. I have the Khalidi-book, and I can always check any page you like. Huldra (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the link to archive.org's copy:  While I think it's interesting for anyone who wants to learn more about various subjects (such as a more precise description of the circumstances of the Egyptian unit's departure than Wikipedia provided; I corrected an article based on this information), it doesn't appear to be used for anything contentious, so whether or not a citation is included doesn't seem that important (as long as wherever it's used really isn't contentious and won't get removed due to editors with an unreasonable idea of "contentious"). 2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see it now, and I have checked with my Khalidi-copy. It seems to me to be a 100% faithful copy. (Not a photo-copy, though; there are fewer words pr line than in my original. However, my copy is a hard-back one, I know there are also soft-bound ones from 2006; perhaps those are different.) I think we can provide a link pr WP:Convenience link, cheers, Huldra (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do so, I think the Al-Falujah article has a dead link to the non-archived page, not sure if it's used elsewhere or if there are automated tools to update links like that. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kiryat Gat. 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/20140803052642/http://www.qiryat-gat.muni.il/StaticPage.aspx?Page=99 to http://www.qiryat-gat.muni.il/StaticPage.aspx?Page=99
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) 00:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified