Talk:Khirbet Beit Zakariyyah

It is my view that this article should be merged with Az-Zakariyya, as both speak about the same Arab village. This article, after merging, since it is the shorter of the two articles, ought to be deleted, while Az-Zakariyya should be retained.Davidbena (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No, they are different villages. One is (or rather was) in Israel, and the other is in the West Bank. So they should not be merged. Ar2332 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS ...sources

Who publishes http://www.etzion-bloc.org.il ?

Also, I have looked in Morris about the 1948 info but there is nothing there?Huldra (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a museum run by the settlers in Kfar Etzion. The contact email on etzion-bloc.org.il is the same email used by the museum.

I don't know what's in Morris. I based my text on this page. I assume it is sourced in the two published works mentioned there, but this should of course be checked. Ar2332 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, the web site run by the run by the settlers in Kfar Etzion is not WP:RS, but you can of course contact them and ask them what sources, (academic books) they base their info on. I checked the register in Morris, and I found nothing on this place. Please check the books that Hebrew WP gives. If we cannot get reliable sources, then out it goes....... Huldra (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

http://biblehub.com/ is a private, anonymous web site, too. Hmmmmmm Huldra (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to check the books when I get the chance to visit a library.

Where exactly in WP:RS do you see grounds for deletion of these sources? Ar2332 (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Kfar Etzion is an illegal settlement, (in the view of the international community), and located on land, AFAIK, expropriated from Khirbet Beit Zakariyyah. That a website from such a settlement should be WP:RS is inconceivable, IMO. But feel free to take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, if you disagree. Huldra (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's talking about the relative rights and morals of Jews and Arabs in the area, I agree. If it describes the interesting archaeological features located underneath the Arab village (which is what it was the source for), I can't think of a reason why it would exaggerate and describe features that aren't actually present. To quote WP:RS, "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."

As for biblehub, it was just quoting a more authoritative source, so I just put that original source in now. Ar2332 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Ar2332, Sigh, you are an editor who do not fulfil the requirement pr WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 to edit in this area, yet, and still you edit war to keep a non WP:RS source in the article? If what it says is correct, then there will be other, authoritative sources to say so. It is as simple as that. Huldra (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's a problem that I only have 484 edits in my history and not the 500 this policy (which I've never heard of!) says, then let me go off and make 16 edits elsewhere and then we can continue this discussion :) Ar2332 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Heh, ok, I never bother with the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 if, and it’s a BIG IF, editors are, shall we say, constructive. But yeah, it is pretty bright rid line. The IP area on Wikipedia is notoriously difficult....Try to find those better sources, instead... Huldra (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, Im just going to remove the http://www.etzion-bloc.org.il-link. I don't see any reason why we should advertise for them, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)