This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographicPalestine region, thePalestinian people and theState of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visitingthe project page, where you can add your name to thelist of members where you can contribute to thediscussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request
This page is related to theArab–Israeli conflict, a restricted topic. You are not anextended-confirmed user, soyou must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make anedit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)
Administrators may disregard the above message.
You are seeing this because of the limitations of{{If extended confirmed}} and{{If administrator}}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of yourcommon.css page:
.ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;}
Warning: active arbitration remedies
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to theArab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in andextended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except formaking edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespaceonly tomake edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Oooch; for theVictor Guérin visit in 1863: there is only one copy of that book on archive.org (and none on google?)...and there is a mistake there: it misses pages 106 & 107! We will have to get a hard-copy to see what he said about Nabi Saleh, Cheers,Huldra (talk)22:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Samarie"-books of Guerin basically describes a journey he took in the summer of 1870. Alas, he travelled (and made notes) in the same area in 1863, so sometimes he "skips" villages and just insert the notes from 1863. Since he mentions "1863" on p.106... I understood it to mean that the description ( :, 'It owes its name to a figure of that name who is venerated there under a koubbeh partially constructed with regular stonework with an appearance of antiquity.' ) was from that year, am I wrong? Yeah, I realise there is nothing about this place on p 107; only on p.105 andp.106. And it certainly sounds as if Guerin described the Shrine of Salih. Cheers,Huldra (talk)21:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The part immediately preceding that shrine description runs:'Having also visited it in 1863, this time round I avoided scaling the heights that crown it'. So the allusion here to the shrine was made on his second visit, recounted here, not on the 1863 trip. Cheers.Nishidani (talk)07:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! So what if one changed present wording to something like:
"The French explorerVictor Guérin visited the place twice in the 19th century. In 1863 he scaled the nearby height. In 1870 he noted that the place was named after a person who "is venerated there under akoubbeh partially constructed with regular stonework with an appearance of antiquity." He estimated that the village had 150 inhabitants."(ref: Guérin, 1875, pp.105,106.)
As far as I understand the discussionhere, we can indeed use B'Tselem as a source, as long as we cite it to them. Which was done in the article. Cheers,Huldra (talk)10:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no, there are many other places discussing btselem - and they are not reliable unless quoted in RS. that is, if the ny times, haaretz, maan, someone RS says that btselem said 'x', otherwise, no. got it?Soosim (talk)10:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on the town, the link to the person and short description of why she is notable is sufficient. Per BRD I am removing it, and "new" accounts would do well to gain a consensus for changes instead of hit and run reverting.nableezy -16:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. We can leave Mr. Ehrenreich's statement out. I figured that since Mr. Ehrenreich is pro-Palestinian in his writings and that the article was published in the New York Times, that it was relevant to this article. But simply linking Tamimi to the suicide bombing will suffice.(Hyperionsteel (talk)17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
The statement that was removed stated that Ahlam Tamimi was "much-loved in Nabi Saleh" and I saw that statement as relevant to the article on the town, because it is about the town's attitude towards her.
The sentence from the article: "Ahlam, who now lives in exile in Jordan, and Said, who is in prison in Israel, remain much-loved in Nabi Saleh."
"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic :Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia."
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose: This is an awkward attempt to remove the article. The article, certainly not aWP:CONTENTFORK, is notable enough and there are numerous independent reliable sources dealing with the case. Mustafa Tamimi is not notable but his death is notable enough. Apparently, there's a misunderstanding regardingWP:CONTENTFORK:"A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles)all treating the same subject." Are we really talking about the same subject? One more thing, perWP:SIZE merging the article into this one is not welcomed.--Mhhosseintalk14:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subject, and death thereof, is not covered as individual subject from the Weekly Nabi Salih protests, but rather most coverage in RS of Mustafa Tamimi is in relation to the on-going weekly protests in this small village and other incidents surrounding the protests.Icewhiz (talk)14:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What??? Your argument is weird. "The subject is not covered as individual subject from the Weekly Nabi Salih protests"? Then seethis,this,this,this and etc. Do you want more? Which of those articles are about "the on-going weekly protests in this small village and other incidents surrounding the protests"? --Mhhosseintalk18:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making my point. The relatively few sources (e.g. examples above) discussing Tamimi as a primary subject always do so while mentioning the protests. The more numerous sources covering him as a secondary or passing subject - are almost always with the primary being the protests or alternatively a distant family member mentioning the protests and his death in the protests. Tamimi's death is very seldom discussed in continuing coverage not in the context of the Nabi Saleh protests.Icewhiz (talk)19:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No opinion on the merge yet, but Gregory do you honestly not see how articles likethis andthis (and a few others) are identical in regards to sourcing and your famous "cumulative impact"? Sure, you could lazily sayother stuff exists without engaging in the issue, but why should one side of the conflict be judged differently when sourcing, the continuation of coverage, and impact (or lack thereof) are identical? The only difference is who was killed and how they were killed though those points should not factor into your mind when considering notability. Why have I never seen you advocate so extensively to delete/merge an article on Palestinian violence as you have on this article of Israeli violence (and others)? Is there a hidden policy I am unaware of?TheGracefulSlick (talk)16:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the material on Mustafa Tamimi would overwhelm this article if fully included.WP:CONTENTFORK arent actually a bad thing, this is not a POVFORK or a redundant fork, this is split off perWP:SUMMARY andWP:SIZE. And yes, the cognitive dissonance in this nomination is strong, with the nominator routinely creating articles likethis andthis while arguing for the removal of any article that deals with Israeli violence against Palestinians. Quite shameful to be honest.nableezy -17:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Egregious double standards by E. M. Gregory again. He has made articles of every imaginable incident of Palestinian stoning violence, though they remain brief stubs and would best be merged into a single article, and remain content forks ofPalestinian political violence or similar general articles. Here on the other hand, content forks are the brand name he assigns to an event that took place in Nabi Salih, and he wishes to conflate the Tamimi incident. You can't have it both ways: push for single articles on Jewish victims, and at the same time push for conflating articles on Palestinian incidents with the village history. It's the one-article-for-anything-to -do-with -them/ endless-articles-with-anything-to-do withus/or/Israelis systemic bias at work again.Nishidani (talk)17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As noted, merging this toNabi Salih would overwhelm that article. According toWP:SPINOFF, "Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates anundue weight problem" is an appropriate reason for creating a standalone article.HaEr48 (talk)17:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mr.E. Keith Roach & Mrs. K.R. entertain SirHarold & Lady MacMichael & 500falahen at Neby Saleh (Is this here?)
There are lots of pictures from the Mattson collection on commons about the celebration ofNeby Saleh. Part of those celebrations took place inRamleh; did also part of it take place here? I see the Pal.rem. site seems to think so, as several of those pictures are uploaded there. I am not sure: I believe there were celebrations for (several?) Neby Saleh other places. Does anyone know? (Hmm, have to readTawfiq Canaan carefully, me thinks),Huldra (talk)22:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy:. there is a typo in the section entitled "Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in/from Nabi Salih," in the paragraph that starts with June 2023. There, the word "cought" should be corrected to read "caught." As you know, I am forbidden to edit in this area.Davidbena (talk)23:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but also the ban applies to talk page edit requests so better to leave it alone until the ban gets further narrowed.nableezy -23:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
_view_of_camp_at_Neby_Saleh_where_dinner_was_served_LOC_matpc.20908.jpg)
