Talk:Imwas

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Palestine High‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jund ???

I think we might have a minor dilemma here; In the article it says that Imwas was in Jund al-Urrdun. Urrdun was the land east of the Jordan River, the Galilee, and parts of southern modern Lebanon. Imwas, on the other hand, is deep within Jund Filastin. Furthermore, al-Muqaddasi writes that it was the capital of its province but that later became Ramla (the capital of Jund Filastin of course). Could it be that in very early Islamic rule for a brief period of time, Imwas was a part of Jordan Province? --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you. Thanks for the barnstar by the way. Very kind of you to notice the work of others while you do so much great stuff yourself.

I got the info on Jund al-Urdunn from Philip Hitti's book History of Syria: Including Lebanon and Palestine. Hitti writes that at the Jabiyah conference, held after the conquest of the new territories in 638, Syria was divided into 4 military administrative districts (Junds), these being: Dimashq (Damascus), Hims (Homs), Urdunn (Jordan), and Filastin (Palestine). He described Jund al-Urdunn as covering the Galilee and extending eastward to the desert, while Jund Filastin comprised the region south of Marj ibn Amir or the Plain of Esdraelon.

Now I think you are right to suggest that the later administrative boundaries of Jund al-Urdunn were different. But at this time at the onset of Islamic rule under the Rshidun caliphate, the district boundaries were as described above, according to Hitti. Perhaps we should do some work on the Jund articles to clear up these confusions. Tiamut^talk 14:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you stated above (Urrdun consisted of Galilee and eastern desert; Filastin (South of Marj Ibn Amir) wouldn't that place Imwas in Jund Filastin? The jund borders changed only a little in the future under the Abbasids (Lajjun for instance had originally been the northernmost town of Jund Filastin, but later was incorporated into Jund al-Urrdun). --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitti source also says: "Other military camps soon grew near Hims, 'Amwas, Tabariyah (for the Urdunn district) and al-Ludd (Lydda, for Filastin). Later al-Ramleh replaced al-Ludd."

Now I read this to mean that Homs, Imwas, and Tiberias were in Jund al-Urdunn. It is possible I am misinterpreting the text, but the sentence structure would have been different if Imwas was in Jund Filastin, i.e. it would have been listed with Lydda. However, I did find another source, Moshe Gil, who says that in the 9th century Imwas was part of Jund Filastin. I added this to the article before your notes from al-Maqdassi. Note this information does not necessarily contradict Hitti since the administrative boundaries probably changed over time.

For now, I'd like to stick with representing the info we have in these two sources, until we can find more that may help to clarify or settle the matter definitively. Anyway, thanks for bringing my attention to it. Tiamut^talk 19:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source, by the way, confirms that Jund Filastin expanded its boundaries over time to include places that were originally in other Junds. Anyway, I'm still looking for a source that confirms Hitti's original placement of Imwas in Jund Urdunn, but I thought you might find the review of the changes of the Junds boundaries interesting.Tiamut^talk 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should try to stick to the two sources and yes, I do find these boundary changes interesting ;). I particularly had been surprised that the Galilee was a part of the Urrdun province which I discovered a few weeks ago. Anyway, I'll see if I can find a source that clarifies which Jund Imwas was located in. If it was indeed the capital of Jund Filastin, it must have been in a very early period. In the Jund Filastin article, it states that the capital had been moved from Ludd to Ramla. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures!

Lots more pictures can be freely uploaded from the Matson collection here. Including a lot of Edward Keith-Roach with the villagers. And this one from between 1900-1920, shows exactly the same structure as the modern picture of "Ruins of Byzantine church, Canada Park" here: Canada Park. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE

Presently, the info that Israel offers compensation is in the lead. I think this is WP:UNDUE, in an article on a place with such a long and rich history as Imwas. Also, is is sourced to:

1: Oren, 2002, p. 307
2: Segev, 2006, pp. 306-309
3: Wiles, Rich (2010). Behind the Wall: Life, Love, and Struggle in Palestine. Potomac Books. p. 20.
4: Interview: Ahmad Abughoush: "Imwas : Canada Park's Concealed Crime "
5: Segev, 1967, p. 82.
6: Mayhew and Adams, 2006.

For a start: Former Israeli ambassador Oren mentions it, yes, (that is source 1). But I cannot find it in source 2: Segev. I am not familiar with source 5, but I somehow doubt that an authoritative study was written so close after the events. And source 6 is pretty useless, as it lacks page-numbers. Will the person who insisted on having this in the lead fix it? Huldra (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oren is a professional historian, and his academic history book was published by Oxford University , no less. This kind of well poisoning is ludicrous. Sources 3 and 4, both Palestinian, confirm that compensation was offered. If we mention that the villagers were expelled in the lead, we can also mention that compensation for their expulsion was offered I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said he should not be in the article (though I always see him presented as "former Israeli ambassador to US", these days, never as "historian" (here, e.g.)), what I object to is cherry-picking one part of his book and putting in the lead. Huldra (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Segev's book "1967" (2007), the story of the destruction of the villages appears on pages 407–409 (not 306–309). It is a good source but as far as I can see there is no mention of the compensation offer. The citation to page 82 of that book is a complete mystery as it is about Yehiam and neither that page nor the adjacent pages mention the Latrun villages. The offer of compensation is something to mention in the article, but for the lead it is clearly undue. For one thing the offer was made some time later—a key fact that can't be omitted. Nor can it be omitted that a condition on the compensation was that the villagers had to give up their claims to the villages. It wasn't a good thing done for the villagers but an attempt to retrospectively legalise their dispossession. At the moment it comes across as an effort to blame the villagers for their misfortune. Zero^talk 01:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have two Segevs here: Segev, 1967, p. 82 refers to Samuel Segevs book published in 1967. (Only available in Hebrew, I believe, and apparently a best-seller in its day.) And as I tried to say above: I doubt an authoritative study of the war was made that close after the events. You are correct about the Tom Segev page-numbers. Huldra (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no source stating that the offer was made some time later. In contrast , there's a source that says it was made during the event. if we are going to detail the expulsion in the lead, there's no reason not to mention that compensation was offered and refused, other than POV-pushing. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which source says it was made during the event? Zero^talk 04:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Both Palestinian sources. Which one says it was at a later time?I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Rich Wiles: "Those who remained in the West Bank formed a committee.." (that was offered compensation). Ahmad Abughoush: "after the expulsion in 1967, the Israeli military commander in the area asked to meet". Wrong both times. Please read more carefully. Zero^talk 09:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you should read more carefully There no indication of time in either of these sources. "after the expulsion" could mean 5 minutes later, or 5 years later.I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you think they formed a committee 5 minutes after they were expelled? Hardly likely. Huldra (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how formal this "committee" was, and I have no problem imagining that in the immediate aftermath of the expulsion, the local military commander asked for representatives to negotiate compensation, and that within minutes the villagers sent over the mukhtar along with a few other dignitaries to represent them. You are of course free to image something else- but that is not in the sources you cite. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely bizarre and incompatible with the story told by the sources and also incompatible with the sources that say the expulsion was done by the military without orders from the government. Compensation has to come from the government, even if the military is assigned to negotiate it. Zero^talk 10:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me it boils down to this: in a place with such a long history, it is undue weight to have this in the lead. I think the offer of compensation (and the accompanying demands) should be mentioned, but under the events in 1967, Huldra (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The expulsion and compensation for it are part and parcel of the same event. Mentioning only the expulsion is a violation of NPOV. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No: it was the expulsion which was noted internationally; the compensation offer later (with conditions such that apparently no-one(?) accepted it) were not. Also, if the Israeli newspapers of the time reported the "flight" as "voluntarily"; why on earth should Israel offer compensation if people left by they own free will? Huldra (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The compensation offer was noted in an academic book by oxford university press- it does nto get more "international" than that. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Both the sources Invented mentioned indicate clearly that the compensation offer came later, at least days if not weeks or months. Combined with other aspects of the story (that they were not even told they couldn't return until at least a week later), days is impossible, and only weeks or longer remain. Zero^talk 22:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. But I think Invented wants us to believe that (to quote him): "The expulsion and compensation for it are part and parcel of the same event." So the Israelis expelled and offered compensation at the same time as they gave the Israeli newspapers stories about the villagers leaving .......voluntarily. Which makes absolutely no sense at all, to me. Huldra (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, note 35: Segev, 1967, Abacus Books 2007 pp.489-490.....is it the correct page-number? I could not find anything about Imwas there? Huldra (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The printed edition I have is by Metropolitan Books, not Abacus Books, so potentially the pagination is different. In my edition, those pages are irrelevant. The "straggling along" quotation is on p407, but I note there also exists an electronic edition with different pages. I'll look more later; I'm out of time at the moment. Zero^talk 00:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal with Emmaus Nicopolis

We have a good article on Emmaus covering the biblical site (and its possible locations), and good coverage of the archaeology at Canada Park. The articles Emmaus Nicopolis and Imwas tell the same story with the same information. An additional problem is that there was never a place called "Emmaus Nicopolis"; Nikopolis was simply a temporary name for Emmaus/Imwas, like Aelia was for Jerusalem. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[/Change]. A better suggestion, in my humble opinion, would be to merge Emmaus with Emmaus Nicopolis, leaving the old Arab title as is commonly practised in many Wikipedia articles. The one problem that I see, however, with merging "Emmaus" with "Emmaus Nicopolis" is that the article "Emmaus" approaches the place name with uncertainty, and lists the various given identifications, whereas "Emmaus Nicopolis" is a specific place, formerly called in Arabic "Imwas."Davidbena (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge [here]. I understand Onceinawhile's proposal as a simplification, merging the content of Emmaus Nicopolis into the extensive article here and retaining the title here "Imwas", so I don't understand User:Davidbena's concern. I am not familiar with the scholarship, but those two articles refer to the same historical settlement, or at least the same site. On the other hand, there is at least a good case (summarised in the 1909 Catholic Encyclopaedia referred to at [1]) that Emmaus and Emmaus Nicopolis are distinct entities, despite the association by Eusebius, Jerome and Edward Robinson; Emmaus is the place referred to in Luke, wherever that is. If "Emmaus Nicopolis" refers to anything, is it to what was later Imwas or to the much-discussed hypothesis that Luke's Emmaus is Nicopolis/Imwas? If the latter, I'd suggest any content not appropriate here is merged into a named subsection of Emmaus. I wouldn't want to lose any material. As a reader, the existence of three articles seems unnecessarily confusing. The main distinction to make is two-fold, between Imwas (formerly Nicopolis) and the scriptural Emmaus which may possibly have been the same, but equally could have been other locations such as "Ammaus" now Motza. --Cedders^tk 11:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Further support that the 1911 Britannica [2] also splits the subject matter into two rather than three. --Cedders^tk 12:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Support merge with Emmaus, not here. The current Emmaus Nicopolis page is a mess, right down to the name it uses and its self-inconsistent and dubious statements regarding the dates. Similarly, based on Emmaus, it's confused about the location of Vespasian's garrison. The biggest problem is that it has lost its focus on the ancient site and started duplicating the overall history of the later settlements, which belongs here at Imwas. That doesn't mean the entire article should be merged here. Some bits should be brought here, sure, but for the most part there's definitely enough to deserve a separate page for its ancient settlement. Given it is the universal traditional and modern site associated with the biblical Emmaus, though, it should 100% be merged into the Emmaus article, with the fringe and secondary alternatives treated as the historical revisions and second guesses they actually are. — LlywelynII 22:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposal

The discussion seems to be drifting towards a merge of Emmaus Nicopolis to Emmaus, perhaps Emmaus#Emmaus-Nicopolis/Imwas. Given this, I've tagged the Emmaus page in order to see whether readers there have a view.Klbrain (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Some sort of merger, possibly the above iteration. The three-page status quo is an obvious mess. Perhaps a merger of all the historical content here, leaving the not yet positively identified bible stuff at Emmaus (biblical place). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will proceed with the merge of Emmaus Nicopolis to Emmaus, as that seems to be the direction of consensus. We can then figure out how to delineate between Emmaus and Imwas. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]