Talk:Ariel Sharon Park

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

Materials[edit]

Some sources which I haven't had time to go over:

—Ynhockey (Talk) 23:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless revert[edit]

Excuse me, but what the hell is this? It isnt accessible to anyone?!?! Go to a library, and restore that material. You arent allowed to remove material because you are too lazy to verify the source. Landscape Research is a peer reviewed journal published by Routledge. That is an unacceptable revert, and I am restraining myself in just politely asking that the material be restored. nableezy - 04:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This material from some arcane journal isn't just available at any library. Thanks for being so magnanimous though... Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, in either paper or electronic form. If you refuse to self-revert your edit I will go to AE. Such editing in unacceptable, laziness in accessing a source is not an a valid cause for removal. The relevant portion from the article are as follows:

p. 37-38: The blindness includes designers who avoid revealing this layer in the history. Conceptual proposals for the rehabilitation of a landfill in the centre of Israel expose the domination of Zionist narratives in design. The landfill is a mountain of rubbish situated over lands belonging to the Arab village of Hiriya that was "abandoned during Israel's War of Independence"

A footnote after Hiriya says, on page 48,

The name of the village appears as al-Khayriyya in Palestinian literature

Self-revert your edit. nableezy - 04:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're getting somewhere that you've been magnanimous enough to actually the share the material. Would be nice to have another source though. I'll self-revert. Don't want you to go through another frivolous AE on something non-actionable. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Plot Spoiler, it seems as though you cant help top yourself. Morris gives the cause of the flight of the natives as a military assault on settlement. The standard term on Wikipedia for villages depopulated of its residents is "depopulated". The village was not simply "conquered" by the Haganah. A few villagers were taken prisoner, two were executed, and the rest fled, and Morris directly supports that (pages xvi, 217, 591). Your change is a blatant POV motivated attempt to downplay what happened. The village was depopulated of its residents by the Haganah. That is a relevant fact that you cannot simply sweep under the rug. nableezy - 03:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added more from Morris so that the complete picture is included. Let me know if you would rather just go back to depopulated of its residents. nableezy - 03:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Kheriya" isn't mentioned in xvi (apparently xviii) and you didn't source page 519. From what I see nowhere does it say fled/depopulated, etc. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He spells it Kheiriya and it is on page xvi, Im looking at it right now. Village number 209, though I see the version in Google Books has it on xviii. On p. 217 Morris writes:

During 28–30 April, the Haganah took Kheiriya, Saqiya, Salama and Yazur – the first three without a fight. HIS attributed the non-resistance of the inhabitants to the prior defeat of Arab arms in Tiberias, Haifa, Ramat Yohanan and Mishmar Ha‘emek: 'It is clear that the inhabitants have no stomach for war and . . . would willingly return to their villages and accept Jewish protection.' Yahudiya and Kafr 'Ana were not attacked and Tel al Rish was briefly taken but abandoned under counterattack. The inhabitants and militiamen of all the villages (including Kafr 'Ana and Yahudiya) panicked and fled with the approach of the Haganah columns or as rounds began to fall. In Kheiriya, Alexandroni’s 32nd Battalion found and buried the bodies of four adult males and three women and briefly detained a handful of men, women and children. Two of the adult male detainees were promptly executed, charged with having killed aHaganah man.

Notice he says The inhabitants and militiamen of all the villages (including Kafr 'Ana and Yahudiya) panicked and fled with the approach of the Haganah columns or as rounds began to fall. On page 591 he writes:

Often, the fall of villages harmed morale in neighbouring towns (vide the fall of Khirbet Nasir ad Din and Arab Tiberias). Similarly, the fall of the towns – Tiberias, Haifa, Jaffa, Beisan, Safad – and the flight of their population generated panic in the surrounding hinterlands: After Haifa, came flight from Balad al Sheikh and Hawassa; after Jaffa, Salama, Kheiriya and Yazur

Are these quotes sufficient for depopulated or would you rather retain the detail currently in the article? nableezy - 03:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thanks for providing only half the story in your edits. Wouldn't expect anything more out of you though... Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And which half am I missing? That the murdered prisoners were charged with killing a Haganah member? Ill put my version up against yours and we can see who is trying to hide the story. nableezy - 03:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now I see that by not including that the men, who were promptly executed, with a fair trial Im sure, were charged with killing a Haganah member that I distorted the picture. As opposed to claiming that a village depopulated of its native residents was simply captured, after having been removed entirely, multiple times. Funny how that works. nableezy - 03:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pay close attention. I'm not saying it wasn't depopulated, etc. The page numbers you gave don't demonstrate that. Page 217 just says it was captured, not depopulated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did say that in the article, you removed depopulated. On page 217 Morris says, speaking of several villages including Kheiriya, that

The inhabitants and militiamen of all the villages (including Kafr 'Ana and Yahudiya) panicked and fled with the approach of the Haganah columns or as rounds began to fall

How exactly does the inhabitants of the village panicked and fled mean only captured and not depopulated? Im paying very close attention, and I cannot wait for you to explain that to me. Pins and needles and all that. nableezy - 03:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There you have it, the residents "panicked and fled" and the village was captured. Yawn. No mention of "depopulation" anywhere. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Panicked and fled with the approach of the Haganah columns or as rounds began to fall. What do you think depopulated means? nableezy - 04:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support Plot's edit, Nableezy, stop making extreme POV edits since nobody welcomes it. Start editing articles in order to contribute them and not in order to agitate people against Israel-- Someone35  19:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Id suggest that you both refrain from WP:HOUNDing other editors and also from making wild accusations without basis. Plot Spoiler's edit is directly contradicted by several sources. This isnt a game where the most people who say "me too" win. nableezy - 19:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you push your nose involve in every Israel-related topic doesn't mean I'm wikihounding you...-- Someone35  19:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How did you get here? nableezy - 19:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so we all agreed that the village was abandoned? easy word to use, covers it all. Soosim (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Morris says that villagers fled in the face of advancing Haganah troops. Abandoned is white-washing the removal of the natives. nableezy - 15:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They fled. Nobody forced them to leave. In Haifa they were even asked to stay. The word "abandoned" is fine because they DID abandon the village.-- Someone35  17:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You really dont know what you are talking about. Morris gives the cause of depopulation as Military assault on settlement. nableezy - 17:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that they would have been killed if an army assaulted their village? They didn't die=they had time to abandon the village since nobody attacked them because they weren't killed=they abandoned-- Someone35  18:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several people were taken prisoner and two of them executed. You are not in a position to argue with the sources, and the sources are clear on this. nableezy - 18:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only two out of over a hundred people? These are probably people who decided to stay and fight the IDF...-- Someone35  19:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt the IDF, there was no "Israel" much less an "Israel Defense Forces", and, in a book published by an academic press authored by an expert in the field, the cause of the depopulation of the town was military assault on settlement. I dont intend on carrying on a discussion with you about this, the sources are clear on the point and your confusion about it is not something that concerns me. nableezy - 19:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IDF was formed from these militias so that's why it was the IDF. also, can you explain how only 2 people were killed if an army assaulted their village?-- Someone35  10:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is what the source says. nableezy - 15:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that the source is right?-- Someone35  16:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have to defend Benny Morris or Cambridge University Press, or any other reliable source for that matter. On Wikipedia, what the sources say is what happened. Unless there is a source of comparative quality that disputes this one, this source is all that is needed. The end. nableezy - 16:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does he know what happened there? He wasn't there during the war-- Someone35  16:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic material[edit]

Off-topic material was added to this article, which is about a waste dump transformed into a park. The dump was not on the site of the Arab village of Khariyya. It was on the "lands of the village." The village was located in an area that is now a suburb of Giv'atayim. Walid Khalidi described the village remains in 1992: "A handful of houses and one of the schools remain. One deserted house, surrounded by shrubs and wild vegetation, has simple architecture: a rectangular door, small side windows, and a flat roof. A two-storey house, identified as having belonged to Ahmad al- Tibi, is used as a store. It has rectangular doors and windows and a gabled roof. Cypress, fig, Christ's-thorn, and orange trees grow on the site. Part of the adjacent land is cultivated and the rest is occupied by buildings." The dump site was not populated, and therefore could not have been depopulated. A brief description of the history of the village is acceptable, but details about executions and bodies being found in Hiriya is plainly false, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. --Geewhiz (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material was clear in that it was about the village lands of a depopulated Palestinian village. I was, and am, fine with a brief description, and I cant imagine that anybody could reasonably object to the brevity of the material that I initially placed in the article. It was only when the events were distorted here that I added what you call off-topic material. The only part of this that is needed is, in my opinion, that the dump is located on the lands belonging to a depopulated Palestinian village. That isnt off-topic. nableezy - 06:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you seem to have lost a citation here. Please restore that. nableezy - 06:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now, once again, the fact that the village was depopulated of its residents has been removed. Unless a reason is given I will be restoring that material. This is not an MFA production, and the fact that this dump sits on the land of a village depopulated of its residents is relevant. nableezy - 14:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is this a Palestineremembered production, and the fact that this dump sits on land that was neither populated nor used for agriculture (please note that under the British Mandate it was Crown Land and technically did not even belong to the village) sufficiently explains why data about "depopulation of residents" does not belong here. As stated above, it is off-topic, constitutes WP:SYNTH, and creates the false impression that this site was a "populated village."--Geewhiz (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it isnt SYNTH, because a single source makes note of the fact that the dump sits on the lands of the abandoned village. It is also not off-topic because, again, a source directly connects it to the topic. I can accept the removal of the details of the Haganah's killing of two villagers, but I cannot accept the removal of the fate of the villagers from the article. A peer-reviewed journal article published by a high quality press explicitly connects the fate of the villagers to this site, so claiming it is SYNTH, or UNDUE is simply not true. nableezy - 16:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the assertion that the village lands were designated crown lands is sourced to an interview with Rachelle Gershovitz of the Israel Venture Capital Journal. Whereas this person's comments are given as though they are authoritative and undisputed fact, the peer-reviewed journal article that makes explicit mention of the territory as belonging to the depopulated Palestinian village is short-changed. I wonder why that is. nableezy - 16:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the dump/park is actually a few kilometers south of the abandoned arab village. the entire area was known as hiriya. there are many many many articles about it throughout googleland and even in arabic and hebrew wikipedia. Soosim (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The village lands != the village, and both the source is and the article was clear on this. nableezy - 17:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi apparently disagrees. He claims to have visited the site of the village in 1992, and what he found there was a handful of houses, a school, cypress trees, fig trees and orange trees. He doesn't say the village was in a garbage dump. Are you challenging the authority of Walid Khalidi? Oh, and your emphatic declaration that "a village = village land" shows how little you know about Palestinian villages. --Geewhiz (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My emphatic declaration was actually the exact opposite of what you apparently think. The ! in != is not. I am not challenging Walid Khalidi, where on Earth did you pull that from? What I am saying, again, is that a reliable source places the dump site on the lands that belonged to a depopulated Palestinian village. Khalidi supports that the village was depopulated of its residents, as does Morris, as does Egoz. Egoz makes specific mention of the fact that the dump site is located on that village's land. So, before you lecture me on how little I know about Palestinian villages based on a distortion of what I wrote, how about you answer my questions? 1. Why is the claim that the British appropriated the land of the site as crown land not attributed to the person making the claim, 2. why is the well-established fact that the dump lies on the lands of a depopulated Palestinian village not included? Reliable sources make the explicit connection, and this campaign to remove well sourced material because it makes a certain state look less than perfect is disruptive. nableezy - 18:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked the sentence for greater clarity. Hope this works. Language adopted from the NYTimes article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replace abandoned with fled and Ill be fine with it. nableezy - 19:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fled is fine with me. But just as you complain that abandon is inaccurate, the same can be said for "depopulated." From dictionary.com: "to remove or reduce the population of, as by destruction or expulsion." This is not the case for this Palestinian village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plot Spoiler (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]
That isnt true, but as we have agreed on a suitable term I dont see the need to continue arguing over the issue. nableezy - 20:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

name[edit]

The NYTimes site already used in the article also supports what had previously been removed by Plot Spoiler, that the site takes its name from the Palestinian village. The NYTimes says Hiriya took its name from a neighboring Arab village that was abandoned in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. I tried to work that in to the first line in the history section, but any improvement by more talented writers is of course welcome. nableezy - 06:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use this language then? That the dump is not located on this former village but is located next to the neighboring Arab village as the article articulates? Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A better source (the journal article in the first section of this talk page) says on the village lands. That doesnt mean within the built up area of the village. Palestinian villages typically consisted of a built up area and an area of land for cultivation or for the use by livestock. The journal article says that the dump is on that area, the village lands. nableezy - 19:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still a waste processing site, or not?[edit]

The article is beating around the bush: the hill isn't, but the area at its foot still is (although that bit was last updated in 2007). Blabla. So: only a park, or a double-purpose area, with waste processing of fresh waste still taking much of the space & bringing much of the financing of the entire twin-enterprise? If the latter: the Hiriya facility has NOT been closed down, just moved around a bit and made much greener. I guess. Pls call things by their real name. We're not editing a political advertising site. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All info a decade old or older[edit]

Is it stil processing waste (see above)? What is still under construction, what is already there? Zip line, boats on lake, visitors centre, other facilities... One finishes reading our article without having a clue. It's more like a pitching a project than presenting current reality. Arminden (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ariel_Sharon_Park&oldid=1198960295"