Talk:Deir al-Balah Camp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability? Delete? Merge? Redirect?[edit]

Among the approximately 700 localities listed by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, even they [[1]] do not report Deir el-Balah camp as a locality separate from Deir el-Balah in their population counts during the period 10- 24/12/1997. -Doright 19:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. They write "Deir al Balah and Deir al Balah Camp", recognising them as different locations. They don't give separate population counts because it is too difficult (there is continual population movement between the two locations). This is the same way they treat many refugee camps that are close to cities. --Zerotalk 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, first, you improperly removed the notability tag, saying "A place where 20,000 live is notable." Now you contradict yourself saying that it is "too difficult" to count the people there. How is it that you now claim to have knowledge of the specific reason why the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics combined the camp with the town as a single reporting entity? And, how is it that you know the reason, "They don't give separate population counts [is] because it is too difficult" to count the difference between the two "places." After all, the land mass of what you claim to be a separate locality is a grand total of 40 acres. Please restore the notability tag until this matter is resolved. -Doright 22:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deir el-Balah camp exists as an entity that has its own administration as a refugee camp under UNRWA auspices. You did not give any reason to doubt the notability of this subject. A lot of sources that deal with refugee camps mention this one, proving it is notable. It has also been mentioned in multiple newspaper articles, also a sign of notability according to WP practice. Therefore, the notability has been established and the tag is not appropriate. The fact that you also gave the same tag to a regular Palestinian village at least 120 years old suggests your judgement on this matter is dubious. --Zerotalk 05:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not deny that the "Deir el-Balah camp exists." There are many things that exist. The goal of the encyclopedia does not include a separate article for all things in existence. Even if some sources that deal with refugee camps mention this one, it does not prove it is notable. It merely suggests that it exists. Using that criteria, every parcel and every building in (e.g., the USA) should have its own article since each is mentioned in sources that deal with real estate. Merely being mentioned does not make it "worthy of notice," for the purposes of WP.
Despite your claim, I do not see "multiple newspaper articles" referenced in the article. Furthermore, "mentioning" is hardly evidence of notability. And, the only article cited does not even have the Deir el-Balah camp as its subject.
It is improper for you to remove the notability tag that states, "An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline . . ." The simple fact is that an editor has expressed such a concern. Please stop edit warring. I also notice that instead of answering my previous questions and addressing the identification of your self-contradiction, you have instead chosen to engage in ad hominem attack. Please review WP:ATTACK.
-Doright 09:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concern you raised has been answered. There is no rule that one editor can maintain a tag indefinitely. Btw, every identifiable community in the USA, many of them much smaller than Deir el-Balah camp, does have a WP article. The same is true of every recognised community in Israel. If you find an exception, someone will fix it. Also, demonstrating notability by newspaper references does not require citing them in the article. For example, the newspaper archive Factiva has at least 500 articles referring to the camp. --Zerotalk 10:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Maintain a tag indefinitely?" Hardly. You have again immediately reverted the tag , despite my repeated request that you not do so. Do not simply revert tags that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view. Furthermore, you have not resolved the concern. It is not clear that the 40 acre Deir el-Balah camp is a "recognized community." Stop creating edit wars by constantly reverting the notification to other editors that a concern exists. -Doright 10:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just "request" a tag, you have to justify it. You have not. I have established the notability many times over. --Zerotalk 12:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Zero here. Obviously, having created the article, I feel the subject is notable. Note that it is tagged as a stub. I am working on expanding it right now (I've already added at least three other reliable third-party sources, some more info and there is more to come). I would appreciate if Doright would do the right thing and remove this misapplied tag. Thanks. Tiamut 12:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zero and Tiamut. Clearly the town and the camp have very different histories and populations and ideally should have two separate Wikipedia articles. --Ian Pitchford 16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, Tiamut, what you 'feel' is not relevant to the objective notability of an article, neither is personally creating one a stamp of legitimacy. WP has rules that apply around the world and this chunk of land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River is no exception.
I have removed the notability tag, the place clearly exists with a sizable population too. Frankly, I fully support having articles about all Palestinian refugee camps around the world (see reason below), of course, that can be sourced even basically. The trouble occurs in that many of these geographical articles are dramatized in one or both directions and statistics are taken from partisan references. This place exists, but when other disputable information is inserted, the article (and all camp/village articles) is tainted.
I think, and I am sure that this will be eventually accepted in a generation or two when the original settling refugee residents die and the descendants wake up to the inheritance (or lack of), that the perpetuation of these camps after the first few years is a crime against humanity and a cruel way to hold hundreds of thousands of people hostage in order to pursue indirect political goals at the explicit expense of tens of thousands of families who have been relegated to poverty, and without a forseeable change in attitude, forever. The original reason for creating the camps will be noted, but it won't be relevant anymore to the world's collective short-term memory, ignorance, and frankly indifference to seeing who the people themselves are not striving to productively change the situation.
My humble opinion would be A)document all camps so that this crime will not be forgotten, but B)keep out the disputable information out that clutters the article and invites 'disputed' and neutrality' tags that stay forever (as opposed to a notability tag that is temporary, and C) remove 'updated' information that can be viewed as WP:RECENTISM. This is an encyclopedia. Look at 'normal' world city articles, they are not updated frequently with news. --Shuki 09:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know Shuki. I really don't understand your hostility. My argument for the notability of Deir al-Balah, a position you seem to share no less, did not rest on what "I feel". I like to share what I feel sometimes, but the crux of my argument was in my acutal edits to the article which established its notability by adding many reliable third-party sources. I would note that this is the third time you have accused me of making edits or contributions that are based on my mere opinion (recall Flying checkpoint, while ignoring the policy arguments or the substance of the edits I actually make. I have already asked you twice to WP:AGF. You don't seem to want to, and have persisted in your attacks on my character, and I find your failure to abide by Wiki guidelines very disappointing.Tiamut 10:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you might also review WP:SOAP. What you think about refugees and their situation and your hope that "when the original settling refugee residents die and the descendants wake up to the inheritance (or lack of)" this problem will just go away, is not relevant to this article, and is quite frankly offensive. Tiamut 10:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does soap have to do with this? Yes, the talk page is for discussing the article. From what I understand from this current discussion, there is an argument whether a locality with over 10 000 people is notable. I agreed and explained why it is so important to include this article on WP. What other argument should I have brought to support my opinion? This is not a chat room, but when someone raises issues of notability/deletion, then opinions are brought to back up the side taken.
There is no hostility, believe me. I've long since learned that it is not tolerated on WP and also a waste of time. Please refrain from accusing me of attacking your character because it has not happened. --Shuki 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents on this matter: It really doesn't matter whether it is one article or two. It feels to me like people are arguing over whether a medium shade of gray is really black or white. The camp is clearly notable on its own and it is separate from the main nearby city according to UNRWA ("Deir el-Balah camp is the smallest camp in the Gaza Strip. It covers an area of 160,000 sq. meters beside the sea in the middle of the Gaza Strip and west of Deir el-Balah (Monastery of Dates) town.") I don't think it matters that much and I would ask both parties why they care so strongly? With regards to Shuki comments about not including news, I would direct Shuki to the article on the town of Sderot, and the section Sderot#City_under_attack. I do believe that some recent events are notable, as long as those events have significant impact and aren't given excessive weight. --Abnn 18:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do not like what has happened on the Sderot page or similar instances. For instance, what happenned on June 18-20 is not significant. I understand that it seems natural for people to turn WP into an almanac, and IMO, it detracts from WP. The Qassam rocket article was also getting out of hand, and thank goodness the article was spilt. --Shuki 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
160,000 sq. meters = 0.06 sq miles. -Doright 04:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Shahin's book, Palestine: A Traveler's Guide[edit]

Mariam Shahin's book, Palestine: A Traveler's Guide


This is not a reliable source for the referenced subject matter. It is an odd place to seek historical, archaeological and related information.

Noted historian Daniel Pipes has said about Mariam Shahin's book, Palestine: A Traveler's Guide:

Perhaps the book's strangest aspect is the pretense that Israel does not exist."

Conceptualized as a propaganda tool, the guidebook contains more than its share of inaccuracies. The first page falsely informs that "Palestine is a Holy Land to Muslims." The assertion that "archeologists have yet to verify the historic existence" of the Temple of Solomon is laughable nonsense. And Lord Balfour was hardly "of Jewish descent."

Daniel Pipes, The Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2006 Vol XIII: No 2 -Doright 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pipes is a partisan who regularly attacks all things associated with the Palestinians, to quote: "Therefore, to those who ask why the Palestinians must be deprived of a state, the answer is simple: grant them one and you set in motion a chain of events that will lead either to its extinction or the extinction of Israel."
According to Amazon's editorial reviews, it was reviewed positively in UK-based The Independent:
""Hugely impressive... deeply researched, written with flair and passion, and enriched... with Azar's beautiful photography."
Feel free to bring in additionally sources that either conflict or reinforce, but it is nonsensical to simply delete it based on the opinion of a partisan. Also the material you removed, like passages you removed recently from another article, used additionally sources than just the Shahin book, thus you are being too hasty in your actions. --Abnn 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deir al-Balah Camp. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deir al-Balah Camp. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deir al-Balah Camp. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deir_al-Balah_Camp&oldid=1220870695"