Talk:Yarka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Israel (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Yarka[edit]

The correct name of the village is Yarka, not Yirka. Jusmine 12:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yirka is the spelling given in Latin letters in the infobox of the page in the Hebrew Wikipedia. (At present there's no interwiki link to an Arabic Wikipedia page.) I've heard both pronunciations and seen both spellings, so my suspicion is that the discrepancy stems from a combination of:
  • transliteration (literal) vs. transcription (per phonology)
  • Hebrew vs. Arabic source language
At any rate, the lack of citation means this requires further checking. I'll try to include this in the scope of working on the Arab localities in Israel (North district) list. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Further: I've since seen that a response to your comment cites Yirka as the spelling used by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

refs for Yirka 170262[edit]

  • Guerin, Galilee II, p. 16-17
  • Clermont-Ganneau, PEF (1882), pp. 37-38
  • SWP I 148,152,193
  • Hutteroth p191, P16
  • search Yerka, Yarka,
  • This book at Amazon (24 refs for Yarka).

Zerotalk 15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of info[edit]

User:BedrockPerson: why on earth are you removing the 1922, 1931 and 1945 data?? I am going to revert you, and I have not broken the 1RR rule (reverting IPs and editors with less than 500 edits does not count.) Huldra (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Oh. My God. Those dates aren't removed, they're just integrated better. There was a sentence that said something like "a 1945 land survey said yirka had a population of 3737 in 1945". so I fixed it. This has gone long enough, this will be the end of the discussion. And remember, revert again and I swear I'll make good on my claims on reporting you. BedrockPerson (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@BedrockPerson: You did not integrate the 1922, 1931 and 1945 data...you removed all the data about religion! This is completely unacceptable, and I will revert you (and you can report me all you like...my last revert of a valid editor, that is, you, was 20:42 9 March) Huldra (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: For the love of God, STOP. When you go into an article about water, you don't need to know that if there's 1g, there's .000000001g of hydrogen and .99999999g of oxygen. There is nothing valuable about listing the population of each goddamn religious group WHEN YOU CAN JUST SAY THE OVERALL POPULATION. IF YOU ARE SO HELLBENT ON THE RELIGION INFO, RE-ADD THOSE PIECES OF INFORMATION WITHOUT REVERTING ALL THE TREMENDOUS FIXES MADE. Not a complex concept. BedrockPerson (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

BedrockPerson, why don't you just cool it with the ALL-CAPS and bold, that's not a calm way to communicate. And I expect you to communicate calmly here. It does seem like a somewhat trivial detail, but why not add it anyway? El_C 17:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@BedrockPerson: If 5% of Yarkas population had been Jewish, would that have been notable? Think about it; would you have removed that information?? And if you are so "hellbent" on keeping all the "tremendous fixes" you made (heck, Trump speech is apparently spreading...;P), why not just do your "tremendous fixes" without removing the religion info? Not a complex concept. Huldra (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
We can do without the sarcasm, Huldra. I expect you both to be on your best behaviour. Why can't you retain his fixes, either? El_C 00:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
EL C: Yes, but why should it be my job to sift through his changes, to see what is salvageable, or not? Such a favour has never been extended to me....or anyone else in the IP area, AFAIK. The thing is, it takes a certain ... temperament, or should I say, lack of temperament, in order to edit in the IP area. In my experience, less than 1 in 10 editors "survive" for long. Nothing so far has convinced me that BedrockPerson is among the 1 in 10. (And I would be happy to be wrong, here...) And also I really would like an answer from him about the question above: If 5% of Yarkas population had been Jewish, would that have been notable? Huldra (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Huldra: I refer you to my latest response on my sockpuppet investigation. For the sake of @El C: I'll summarize: my personal opinion, religious alignment, or political stances should not, and are not, be a concern of you nor is it, or has ever been, present in my editing patterns. So the answer is no. Oh, but you're a former editor of the week! That must mean you know everything about me as soon as I edit a page! Bad report, bad habits. Bad everything. You also owe an apology to Debresser, who you jumped all over for disagreeing with you when he was just trying to help. Stop using Wikipedia as a battlefield for your opinions, and the self-righteousness needs to stop. You're no champion of the cause, you're just sitting behind a computer screen and berating those who you assume have differing viewpoints than you. Actually make a difference, don't pride yourself on self-proclaimed internet points. BedrockPerson (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@BedrockPerson: ...and now could we please perhaps return to editing? If you still want to edit this article, may I suggest that you start with the time outside the British Mandate era, as it was the edits in the British Mandate paragraph which was objected to earlier? Huldra (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but if you remove something and that removal ends up being disputed, the onus is on you to reintegrate that back again when challenged. Those may be trivial numbers, but it is a village of less than one thousand people, so it may be of slight interest to our reader. Why not just do the work. As for the SPI report, do you deny those IPs are you logged out? You say that the conflict is "a thousand miles away"—not for everyone here it is(!). That said, I can't see why having or not having those details has anything to do with a position on the IP polemic. It's just some overly detailed demographic info, which I suggest you simply re-add to your changes, so that we can be done with this senseless dispute. And do cool it, overall. Israel et al. is heated enough realm, and I'd hate to agree with Hudlra about that 1 in 10 not making it. El_C 22:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not acceptable—who is berating whom? El_C 22:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: Hence I changed it. Almost immediately. Lord in Heaven. BedrockPerson (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The what? El_C 22:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
What? BedrockPerson (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Changed what immediately, what are you talking about? El_C 22:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not a chatroom—please don't be so obtuse. El_C 22:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)