Talk:Ein Kerem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Naming

The verse cited in Joshua (15:59) actually says כרמל, Carmel/Karmel (referring to the site south of Hebron I believe. The Jerusalem Municipality website lists the neighborhood as Ein Kerem, with a few Ein Karems turning up, and no Ain Karim. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Jerusalem maps spell the name Ein Kerem[1][2]. Additionally, the Hadassah Medical Organization refers to the complex as Hadassah University Hospital Ein Kerem. While I attempted a Google test, it was inconclusive, as while Ain Karim got 315,000 hits and Ein Kerem and Ein Karem only 226,000 and 112,000 respectively, many of the results across the board had nothing to do with the place in Jerusalem. TewfikTalk 18:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is all very nice, but people who live in Jerusalem (and Ein Karem) call it "Ein Karem." The Hadassah website is not an authority - it is written by hired translators who write what they like.--Gilabrand 09:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

user:Tewfik has been very active at 'Israeilzing' pages such as this one... The official 'Israeli' name is Ein Kerem, and can stay that way (while mentioning that the Palestinian village was called Ain Karim). The term Jewish refugees from Morocco and Romania is not accurate. They are immigrants, not refugess. The homes were not abandoned... they were vacated (either by force or by fear). Wikipedia is not a place for points of view or rhetoric. I don't want to start an edit war here, but would appreciate if this is rectified. --Fjmustak 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello user:Fjmustak,

I explained the rationale for changing the article name above, however let me apologise for not being sufficiently clear about my reasoning. I'm not attempting to ignore the history of the place's previous residents, rather the Arabic and Hebrew are nearly interchangeable in this case. An example of such usage can be found on Palestine Remembered which features Ayn Karim, Ayn Karem, Ein Karim, and Ein Karem. Indeed, Palestine Remembered notes that there are Arab families that live there presently as well.

As for the Moroccans and Romanians, Jewish refugees, Jewish exodus from Arab lands, History of the Jews in Morocco, History of the Jews in Romania, and Romanian Jews paint them as refugees. Political immigrants (political (e.g, to escape dictatorship or other unfair governments; disagrees over government) persecution and oppression, including genocide, ethnic cleansing, and bullying.) meet the definition described in refugees, though all refugees are technically immigrants as well.

In terms of the abandoned homes, I described what was without the cause simply because I don't know it. If you can find documentation for the circumstances under which the village was vacated, then that should certainly be included. All I was able to find were second-hand references to the village in relation to the Deir Yassin planning.

One last point, if you believe that I've made a mistake or violated Wikipedia policy, please point it out on the appropriate talk pages (the article's and mine). Thanks TewfikTalk 04:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] and more POV...

Tewfik removes the following text from the article, with the edit-line: (rmv general Jerusalem issues which are dealt with in the main article):

According to the UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in 1948, Ein Karim (with the built-up area of Motsa) was to be the most Western part of the Jerusalem area that was, "in view of its association with three world religions" to be "accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control". The United Nations Conciliation Commission in 1949 reaffirmed this statement.

Please show me where this is dealt with? It is not dealt with in History of Jerusalem. There are only 4 places in/around Jerusalem which are mentioned in these two UN papers, and those 4 places represents the Northern-most, Western-most, etc borders of the international area. In other words: this inf. should only in the articles about those 4 Neighbourhoods. Still, this inf. is censored out of this article. Why? I find this a bit absurd. Regards, Huldra 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody have been able to show that this information is anywhere else on Wikipedia, I am reinserting it. Regards, Huldra 12:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your assertion that I am pushing a POV, I firstly will point you to WP:AGF. As I said in my edit summary, if you think the main Jerusalem subarticle (Positions on Jerusalem) doesn't deal properly with this topic, then discuss it there. However it is both impractical and inappropriate to fork that discussion out to every neighbourhood of Jerusalem. As for links, I'm not sure why you are removing a neutral photo-gallery, or why you feel it is connected to the removal of the political and nonneutral PalestineRemembered, but there is nothing in common between them except for the fact that they are both links. TewfikTalk 17:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, talking about assuming good faith...: where have anybody stated that the above paragraph (about the UN resolutions) should be inserted into every neighbourhood of Jerusalem?! When I read you reply, I cannot understand that you can have read what I have written. I said very explicitly that: this inf. should only [be] in the articles about those 4 Neighbourhoods.. ..I of course agree completely with you when you say that "it is both impractical and inappropriate to fork that discussion out to every neighbourhood of Jerusalem" (my "bolding"). I repeat: this inf. should go into exactly 4 Neighbourhoods.
As for external links: The photo-link you add is a private commercial(??) link, showing one side of Ein Kerem. I think any Palestinian (at least from Ain Kerem!) would see it as as much a "propaganda"-link as you ses "Palestineremembered"... you really need some consistent standard here: either you take away *all* private/commercial links, or you leave *all* in. You cannot "only" leave the "picture-postcard" in and leave out the rather darker history. I call that bias. Regards, Huldra 08:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Huldra, changing "captured" to "occupied" as a bypass in your changes raises big question marks over the motive of these edits. Saying that the photo web-site is a propaganda site doesn't make any sense. It includes ONLY IMAGES and of all the CHURCHES in the place. It's just a gallery of images of churches, how can it be pov I don't know. Amoruso 09:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Forking should not be done for any amount of articles. A mention of the corpus separatum is certainly in order (and was added by Zero), but a discussion of corpus separatum is not to be had here, but rather on centralised pages. As for the church pictures being POV, I commented below. TewfikTalk 19:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

If "some" private links about Ein (Ain) Kerem are cut out; then, in all fairness, all private links should be cut out. Regards, Huldra 12:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If "some" POV private links are cut out, then all POV private links should be cut out. What do you consider to be POV about a photogallery of churches? TewfikTalk 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Village or neighborhood?

In the past it was a village outside of Jerusalem but today isn't it considered a neighborhood in Jerusalem? Yonatan (contribs/talk) 12:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a neighborhood of Jerusalem. This whole page needs some serious revision, plus removing most of the photographs, which are very poor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilabrand (talkcontribs) 09:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] William O. Douglas

A book by William O. Douglas is quoted at lenght...however, what is quoted is in direct contradiction what the Israeli leaders at the time wrote/said! So; either Benny Morris + the Israeli leaders at the time are unreliable...or Douglas is unreliable... I suggest that we cut out his quote, possibly keeping one sentence saying something like "William O. Douglas claims otherwise in his book " Strange Lands and Friendly People". Regards, Huldra 18:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. It also contradicts all other eyewitness accounts I have encountered. It also, I believe, would maintain NPOV is we summarize the quote as suggested since the various eyewitness accounts are similarly summarized.216.95.114.241 (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I would like to request that a less partisan source be supplied for the information regarding the statue of Aphrodite. While I find the information interesting and non-problematic in itself, the source is blatantly partisan. The citation is sourced from a website called "My Holy Land" which declares itself to be "devoted to Christians who support Israel." It is affiliated with the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy in Herzliya which is not an authority on archaeology. The aim of the site is a good one: knowledge and understanding amongst peoples and to spread truthful information about Israel. Unfortunately, it goes about this by selectively blacking out swaths of history- ancient and modern. For example, the source of the name is not explained, but they provide - unsourced- information regarding what the ancient Hebrews, Romans, and Crusaders called the area (all of which is new to me). Ein Karem's history ends with the Crusades and appears to begin again in 1919 before falling into silence in the historical record. In other words, there is a historical blackout the duration of the Muslim presence in the territory.

In short, I question the credibility of "My Holy Land" as an objective source of information. I suggest that the citation remain until a suitable replacement citation can be found.

Best regards and keep up the good work.216.95.114.241 (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)