Talk:Umm Tuba

message: There's a disagreement about what stub(s) to use for this stub.
Umm Tuba is NOT part of Israel (the internationally recognized part, i.e. pre-67 borders), therefore it shouldn't have an Israel geo stub.
Umm Tuba is not under PNA, therefore it shouldn't have a PNA geo stub.
Either both stubs are used, as it is an area claimed by both Israel and the PNA, or we change the PNA geo stub to Palestine geo stub (where Palestine can refer to either the GEOGRAPHIC area of historic Palestine OR the internationally recognized Occupied Palestinian Territories.  It falls within both definitions) --Fjmustak 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs 

message: I find this edit unacceptable, as the "advocacy source" is a project funded by the EU.  ("This text has been drafted with  financial  assistance from the Commission of the European Communities. The  views expressed herein are those of the beneficiary and therefore in no way reflect  the official opinion of the Commission.") It cannot be removed with a "IDONTLIKEIT"-argument. Huldra (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Huldra. Glad to see somebody cares about this article and wants to improve it. But several of the articles you added as external links do not mention Umm Tuba. There is no justification in adding long lists of external links that have no direct connection to the topic of the article. I'm sure, familiar as I am with your long history of constructive contributions to Wikipedia, that you can find good academic sources. Best,--Geewhiz (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Check again. Can you list one article I listed that does not mention Umm Tuba? All 4 articles mentions it, mostly about land that people from Um Tuba have lost. Please reverse. (And yes, there a lots of other (historical) sources too, I have just started expanding this article. ) Huldra (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry about the link. i have changed it to 1948 Arab–Israeli War. and not sure what is wrong with jerusalem foundation or the mfa for their information? Soosim (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for changing the link.  As for Jerusalem foundation or the mfa: the poica links were not used for info in the articles, but were still removed as "non-neutral POV organization." I believe that sources actually used for info in the article should at least be as NPOV as those in ext. links (Personally I have a lower tresh-hold for the "External links"-section, than I have for actual reference-sources.) As you can see, I did not remove the  Jerusalem foundation or the mfa-sources. (Thought especially the mfa-source gives a very one-sided view;  the same issue (about the possible Biblical place) is discussed at length by Guerin and SWP.) My question is: are you really willing to claim that, say, the mfa web-site is a NPOV-source??  (I so, I am quite willing to show you a few places where they present a distorted view of history, to say the least. You can start with this: .   They simply cannot be trusted for history, but still I´m quite willing to keep the present source in the article...if we write "according to". But I think it is a horrific  double-standard to include info, sourced to clear pro-Israeli-sources, while deleting external poica-links as being "POV". Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no further objections,  I will reintroduce the external links. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

text: i do object. poica is not appropriate for this. Soosim (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to hear an argument (beyond "Idontlikeit") as to why poica is more POV than, say, www.mfa.gov.il? Note: the argument started with the claim that the village was not mentioned in the external links. When that was shown to to be accurate, the goal-post argument changed.  Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a general comment here, POICA, which is basically a branch of the Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem (ARIJ), is reliable for statistical information. With regards to historical and political matters, however, material cited to POICA or ARIJ should be attributed to those sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I try to avoid quoting it on history, as there are normally better sources around. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: poica - like every other research institute, academic institution, etc. is only reliable if quote in a third-party RS. otherwise it is OR, and, their own POV. there are dozens of these out there, and none are allowed by themselves. Soosim (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, whaw, what if followed that for pro-Israeli sources too?  Lol! Huldra (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

text: huldra - it should be followed for everyone. Soosim (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation of this rule is not what I see here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Electronic_Intifada.I will bring it up there, if you do not agree. And again: you really have not answered my question about wether you think mfa.gov.il  can be quoted directly. That is noted. Cheers,  Huldra (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  please do bring it up since it is being discussed anyway. always good to have more points of view. and about mfa.gov.il - they are RS for their material. (they are often used on wikipedia for speaking for "israel" even though a country might have many voices.) and they are no different than the equivalent .ps site, right? Soosim (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable 

message: The Etymology-sections seriously need to be expanded ( preferably by some French-speaker?) The (current) mfa-source is partly contradicted by Guerin,  while Palmer comes up with a third explanation.  Huldra (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find the original of the announcement that mfa is reporting?  Usually one looks at antiquities.org.il but for the past few days there has been a javascript there that kills my browser.  Zerotalk 00:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have found it here.  I can also see that (now banned user) Historist, who added the stuff, misrepresented the text. I will change it. Huldra (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The following links are inactive:
Construction at a New Location on Abu Ghnaim Mountain (Har Homa Settlement) 18, November, 2000, ARIJ
The snaking Wall enters area (A) in Bethlehem 04, December, 2003, ARIJ
House demolition in East Jerusalem during the month of August 30, September, 2004, ARIJ
House demolition cases and testimonies from Jerusalem 19, September, 2006, ARIJ--77.125.85.13 (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive links 

message: The file : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EastJerusalemMap.svg :
In green : West Bank, Arab areas ; and East Jerusalem, Arab areas
In dark blue : West Bank, Jewish areas ; and East Jerusalem, Jewish areas : these are colonies in Palestinian territories.
יניב הורו removed it saying  "unnecessary" and "POV". It is necessary to understand why some areas are green and some others are blue : the meaning of these colors. POV : see what is written in the file. Thank you.--2A01:CB00:980:7A00:90A8:3B48:42D8:4C2 (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The file East Jesrusalem Map