DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Trang chủ
  2. Wiki

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Chacour - not from Iqrit!

[edit]

The entire description of Father Chacour, about the houses being exploded by the forces of the IDF, Relates to the village of Bir'am - not Iqrit. The village Gish, is across the hill from Bir'am - while Iqrit is more then 10 miles to the west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.71.9 (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm this comment, although it must further be noted that the story as related by Chacour does not seem to be true. Bir'am was destroyed in September by airstrike, not on Christmas by tank fire. Possibly he appropriated Iqrit's story for his book to help make it more compelling, and the cited source is using his story in its original context. However, that cited source does not declare this, and I cannot find concrete confirmation in English sources that Iqrit was destroyed by tanks before its residents' eyes. The story should be removed from this page until a more direct and transparent source can be provided. ThoughtJot (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThoughtJot: I have Chacour's book, and in there it is explicit that he is referring to Bir'am. So I'll remove this passage. I'm not sure about the sequence of events; the article of Ryan seems to suggest there were two rounds of destruction of Bir'am. Zerotalk 04:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The correct thing to do in this case would have been to move this passage to the page on Kafr Bir'im, which is what I will be doing. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Orthodox or Catholic?

[edit]

The article says that the village was Greek Catholic with over 400 Greek Catholics out of some 400+ citizens, but then says it had a Greek Orthodox school and big Greek orthodox church. Wikipedia's article on "Arab Orthodox" says Iqrit was Orthodox. Is it confusing Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic????? Rakovsky (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1931

[edit]

The 1931 census operates with two places, in addition to Iqrit (with its 339 inhabitants), it has an "Arab Iqrit", with about 120 Muslim inhabitants. Anyone has any ideas as to what that is? Both PalRem and Khalidi gives the population as 339 in 1931; it seems as if the people of "Arab Iqrit" is not counted anywhere?? Huldra (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I don't see it on a map or find any other mention. The only thing I can think of it is that it refers to a bedouin group near Iqrit. Usually names 'Arab X refer to tribes. But that's just a guess. I'll have further places to look next week. Zerotalk 23:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, note that they count 26 houses, is that tents, then? Btw, the same is the case for Tarshiha, p. 103 in Mills. There is an "Tarshiha, Arab", 154 Muslims in 39 houses, which the Pal.Rem-site does not mention. Huldra (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iqrit. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Intifada

[edit]

@Smallangryplanet, I have removed the EL per the lack of consensus for its inclusion in the ELN-discussion. Per WP:ELBURDEN, you need a consensus for inclusion to keep this one. I would also like to note that we already have 9 other ELs, of which I believe at least some have a clear Pro-Palestinian bias, so I don't think that this perspective is in any way underrepresented. FortunateSons (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus on removing the link. Coleisforeditor (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we keep the link to Electronic Intifada under "external links"?(link in question: Iqrit, Electronic Intifada) Huldra (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, per the discussion at ELN, according to which this GUNREL source should only be used in exceptional cases, which isn't given here. The EL links to all reporting about the town and is not selective about content, thereby in effect "smuggeling in" content that is insuffieciently reliable for inclusion within the article. The content therefore regularly has limited relevance and/or is non-current, with the last update being in 2018. Lastly, the article already includes 9 external links, multiple of which have a Pro-Palestinian leaning. I see no reason to include another one, particularly if it is unreliable. FortunateSons (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, from your complaint at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Use of Electronic Intifada within external links, please note:
    From WP:ELMAYBE #4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
    The Wikipedia:External links rules do not care if RSP has declared some website to be "GUNREL". A source is reliable when editors accept it as sufficient to support a particular claim in an article. External links do not support any claims in the article, and therefore "reliability" is an irrelevant concept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify my position! As far as I can tell, those rules do technically care: a source that isn’t GUNREL is easier to include, because the requirement for consideration alone is increased compared to a reliable source. However, my main point is the following: Unreliable sources can be included in some cases, but the way in which EI is unreliable is directly detrimental to it’s value to the reader: this is a case of “close to depreciation unreliability and extreme bias”, not one of “technically doesn’t meet the requirements of a reliable source because it’s an SPS from someone who barely missed the mark for being a subject-matter expert”. If a source could plausibly misinform a reader, such as referring to occupation forces within Israel proper, any information from it is significantly tainted in the context of an EL. FortunateSons (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can see, most articles in EI about this village relate the experience of the (ex-) villagers trying to get their village back, or even visiting Ikrit. These are stories Israeli leaders presumably do not like to hear, but I don't see how these stories "could plausibly misinform a reader"? That they refer to "referring to occupation forces": that is their experience, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m referring to the linked discussion in the ELN thread, where it’s used without specific attribution about another similar village. The same article is part of the non-selected articles linked here, and it’s a symptom of what’s wrong with the source per se. FortunateSons (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article:Israel prevents Palestinians from visiting church in destroyed village, btw, that article is about Kafr Birim, though it is "tagged" with Iqrit (The two villages have very similar histories: tho peaceful Christian villages, whose inhabitants were "evacuated" for "two weeks", and then never allowed to return. Both villages were in the area designated for the "Arab" (Palestinian) state that never came into existence, as Israel and its neighbours each gobbled up as large a part they could in 1948.) So Iqrit (and Kafr Birim) were occupied by Israel and their land confiscated and given to Jewish settlements. Hence "Israeli occupation authorities", I am not saying (and I don't think the article is saying) that there is anything officially called "Israeli occupation authorities", but that is the POV of the villagers. Huldra (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article uses it in their own words, not as an attributed position. The view that anything within the Green Line (Israel) is occupied is a fringe view and not supported by political theory, law, or the significant (if not overwhelming) majority of countries. FortunateSons (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that in Israel this is an (extreme) minority view. However, that is not so for the descendants of this village's inhabitants; hence it has a place in this article. However, it would of course not have a place as an EL in, say, the Israel article, Huldra (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My point isn’t that it’s a minority view, it’s that it’s a fringe view with no basis in law or any related discipline. FortunateSons (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fringe view in the world/Israel; yes, but NOT a Fringe view in *this* village, Huldra (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A globally fringe view that deviates significantly from scholarly consensus is undue even if supported by signifcant parts of the population of a former village with 500 people. If you want to claim that they consider the area occupied, you can do so in the article with a reliable source, assuming it's WP:DUE? FortunateSons (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the concept of "fringe" is even relevant. A universal truth is that people give personal accounts in words they choose themselves. The fact that their account calls some party by words that other people would not use doesn't devalue it or make it fringe. Zerotalk 02:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem isn’t the part with their personal accounts, it’s with the author using it in his own words (in the first sentence). FortunateSons (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: In fact some need removing. See comments below.
Comments: Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of. hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has 9 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a fourth. Consensus is likely not going to agree to add one more for 10 links.
None is needed for article promotion. Inclusion for a more numerous amount would depend on consensus. However,
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. Note:
External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
    • Please note:
  • WP:ELBURDEN: (per comments) Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

Summary: Aside from the already bloated "External links" section there are issues including the classification so the article fails the B-class criteria #1 and #4.

    • Categories:
  • Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from January 2024
  • Articles with unsourced statements from December 2023
  • Articles with unsourced statements from October 2023
  • Vague or ambiguous time from October 2023
  • Wikipedia articles in need of updating from October 2023
  • Wikipedia articles needing clarification from January 2024. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include I agree that the EL is presently "loaded", I suspect that I am one partly to blame. (I often "dump" links as EL when I don't have time to incorporate them in the article). Some of the links there are clearly RS (BBC and Haaretz), I will try to incorporate them into the article now, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2025 (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.

cleanup

[edit]

The article has a {{cleanup reorganize|date=January 2024}} , but no discussion about what should be cleaned up. I am rm it, Huldra (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]