Talk:Abu Ghosh

Due to the 1RR pointed out to me here, I reintroduces some instanced I think are wildly WP:UNDUE in this edit....where basically they are all saying the same: how friendly Abu Ghosh were with the Yishuv. (Not that you would get that impression, when you read how they were treated in the 1948 war.) That is simply not needed. Huldra (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Considering the local outcome in 1948, it would seem that such good neighborly relations were quite important, and perhaps even due for an expansion beyond the two short paragraphs presently here.Icewhiz (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the Morris book about this (that is, the 1994 book)? I added a lot from it years ago...that has been gradually reduced, and instead what wonderful relationships they had with the Yishuv has been expanded. Lol....Huldra (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree Huldra, that the throwaway line from Issa Jaber is UNDUE, as is the tidbit on dinner with Weizmann. nableezy - 23:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not convinced that Weitzmann's visit is all that notable, but I could be persuaded either way. The Jaber quote , OTOH, is far from undue. As @Icewhiz: notes, Abu Gosh's history is quite unique - it is the only Arab village in the area that was untouched by the war's violence. And if that outcome is , as Jaber claims, the result of a premeditated 'long term view', that is certainly worthy of mention. In any case, removal of relevant, sourced material with an edit summary that reads 'seriously" is unacceptable. Attack Ramon (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, again, have you read the Morris 1994 book? Somehow I doubt it, otherwise how can you write such rubbish as it "was untouched by the war's violence"? Huldra (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

what part of that book do you believe contradicts that statement? Attack Ramon (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

pp. 257–289, the chapter called: The Case of Abu Ghosh and Beit Naqquba, Al Fureidis and Jisr Zarka in 1948 -or Why Four Villages Remained ...read that, and you (hopefully) will not go around writing rubbish ("was untouched by the war's violence") as you did above, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

While touched, it remained in place, and maintains (to this day) friendly relations. Both pieces of information are well sourced. Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you guys really feel that every mention of an Arab and a Jew eating together here should be in this article? Should every act of violence recorded against the villagers of say Abu Dis likewise be included in that article if it can be sourced? nableezy - 05:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You mean like this, or this, or this, or the countless other articles about Palestinian localities that have every mention of someone being shot or having his tree uprooted? Tell you what, go and remove those trivial mentions from those articles, and I'll remove the mention of Weitzmann's visit from this one. Attack Ramon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No but first President of Israel is notable enough--Shrike (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So after user:Shrikes latest revert we have in the article:

From the early 20th century, the leaders of Abu-Ghosh worked together and were on friendly terms with the Zionist leaders.[24] Throughout the Mandate period, the village of Abu Ghosh was on friendly terms with local Jews.[25]

Lol, I wonder if Wikipedia will have any readers left with an IQ of above 80 if we continue to treat them to "gems" like the above. Perhaps you should lobby the WMF to change the slogan to "Wikipedia: the free encyclopaedia for imbeciles"? Huldra (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Repetition (rhetorical device) can be quite effective. Note that local Jews vs. Zionists, as well as the time periods, are rather significant differences. However, we could perhaps combine the two.Icewhiz (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So we are writing poems now? ..that is where Repetition (rhetorical device) belongs. And I could also have added the sentence about welcoming Chaim Weizmann, for a third repeat ...Huldra (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you regarding combining the two sentences (but retaining both refs, and mentioning Zionists and local Jews).Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually...that was something I tried to do, before I met up with your revert army. If you check, you will see that I didn't remove a single ref... I just tried to summarise in a sentence or two what you guys want to say in a dozen sentences. Such bloated language (or in your words: Repetition (rhetorical device)) simply has no home in an encyclopaedia, IMO. In fact, I had hoped to trim it down further (unifying the Cohen refs, for a start)....if anyone of the revert army presently watching this article would be interesting in doing anything else than reverting: please start. Huldra (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Each of the people reverting to include this material have repeatedly cited WP:ONUS for keeping out disputed material. You know full well this material does not have consensus for inclusion. Until there is consensus for inclusion the onus remains on the people seeking to include it. @Shrike:, please explain why you revert per ONUS multiple times but ignore that here. nableezy - 21:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. The material was in the article for years , and thus had consensus prior to Huldra's bold edit. [Per WP:CONSENSUS - "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus"]. Of you now want to show that there is a new consensus, for removing the material, the operative clause of WP:CONSENSUS says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. " For editors interested in a lesson in hypocrisy, compare this user's comments here with his comments and action on the [Jerusalem]] article - Attack Ramon (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there may have been consensus, but there clearly is not consensus now. Yes compare the two, youll see what does not have consensus in both cases is removed. nableezy - 21:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If there was consensus before and there is no consensus to remove it now, then, per policy, the article goes back to the version before the bold edit. Go read the policy, it is quite clear. Attack Ramon (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot of terribly written material which can stay in articles for years, and years, and years..at least in articles such as this one (which has less than 30 watchers). If we just cried consensus! at each crossroad when we try too weed out the drivel...well, the Wikipedia would never improve. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Baloney. All that's needed is for people to get consensus for their new changes, which you have failed to do. Attack Ramon (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Lol. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This is disputed content. nableezy - 00:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That onus was met several years ago, when the material was added to the article. If you now want to remove the material which had consensus, the following applies - "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. " This is policy, and you need to edit accordingly. Attack Ramon (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And it no longer is. WP:ONUS is policy, and you need to edit accordingly. nableezy - 16:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Compromise suggestion. I suggest to tighten this a bit, to the following:

From the early 20th century, the leaders of Abu-Ghosh worked together and were on friendly terms with the Zionist leaders,^[1] and local Jews.^[2] When Chaim Weizmann, later the first president of the State of Israel, visited Palestine in the spring of 1920, he was hosted by the residents of Abu Ghosh.^[3] According to Issa Jaber, director of the local department of education, the personal relationship with Zionist leaders during the pre-state period set the basis for later cooperation. "We had a perspective for the future", he says.^[4]

thoughts?Icewhiz (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with the above. Attack Ramon (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Too much on Weizmann. nableezy - 16:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion:

From the early 20th century, the leaders of Abu-Ghosh worked together and were on friendly terms with the Zionist leaders, and local Jews.^[1][2][3][4]

Issa Jaber just isn't noteworthy, nor is each and every visit by Chaim Weizmann, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Issa Jaber has been elected mayor since - however I've removed him due to this failing WP:V. I moved the ref to the chametz section since it does support the Chametz sale (and contains quite a bit of info). I disagree on Weizmann - this is sourced, and illustrates the relationship between the village and the Zionists - Weizmann had an important role in the Zionist leadership at the time (possibly "top dog status" - leading the British wing at the time).Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

So your position now is if is something is sourced it should stay but when you dislike the material it is UNDUE if it is just in one source? And that ONUS is required when you dislike the material but magically is not when you dont? nableezy - 15:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is plain silly. I bet Chaim Weizmann visited hundreds, possibly thousands of places in his capacity as "top dog"...AFAIK, it isn't mentioned in any other place (unless something important happened there...and being "graciously hosted" just doesn't make the cut.) Huldra (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Hillel Cohen (who doesn't say where his information is from) is the only source for this. It could be that Weizmann just received the standard Arab hospitality, which would not be notable. Zero^talk 04:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The Library of Congress has a usable photo showing "Palestine disturbances 1936. Palestine Arabs at Abou Ghosh taking the oath of allegiance to the Arab cause, viz. to fight Jewish immigration, etc." It would help to balance the one-sided presentation that appears now. Zero^talk 04:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed this. What is distasteful about mentioning Weizmann's visit (as a sign of reciprocal esteem) is the fact that Weizmann is known to have contempt for the very Arabs whose hospitality he was enjoying. Just after the Balfour Declaration was made he cracked to Arthur Ruppin: '“with regard to the Arab question, the British told us that there are several hundred thousand negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence.’

So it is a fair estimate that as smiles were exchanged Weizmann was thinking of exotic 'niggers'. It is, for that reason, something that can be naively entered as part of the town's history, since the text used states that fact, but ignores Weizmann's known contempt for the people he knew his agency would aim to expel.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Having read the published multi-volume collection of Weizmann's letters, I can verify your judgement of Weizmann's attitude towards Arabs and also his assumption that he could express such opinions to Balfour without reprimand. For example he wrote to Balfour to complain about the British tendency (as he feared it) to treat Jews and Arabs equally instead of recognising the innate superiority of Jews. Zero^talk 01:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest to add an updated image to the page - this is the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AbuGhoshOct282021.jpg . Whoever is approved to edit the page may feel free to to add it. Thanks! Agmonsnir (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agmonsnir (talk • contribs) 06:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)