Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by The Bestagon (talk). Self-nominated at 14:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jenin Camp; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - not needed
Overall: No qpq is needed. Article is just over five times expanded. I like ALT1 best. I read through and the article appears neutral as well. Good work! Lightburst (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bestagon I see some continued editing so will have to watch that the article remains stable. Also I will change ALT1 from "twenty were in" to "twenty were from" because that is what the source says. "It added that 20 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces came from Jenin." It does not demostrably change the context or meaning so we will not need another reviewer to approve. Bruxton (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why isn't this article at "Jenin refugee camp"?[edit]

As the DYK ALTs above make plain, the way one most naturally refers to the "Jenin Camp" is as the "Jenin refugee camp" - it's there in the first sentence, it's there on Ngrams and it's there on scholar, with hits plummeting away if you enforce "Jenin Camp" as a set term, but holding steadier at three times the number of hits if you lock in the term "Jenin refugee camp". The WP:COMMONNAME argument appear strong. Is there something that I'm missing here, or is the page just massively overdue a bold move to the more prevalent name? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Somehow I haven't thought about this before; this should be moved. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 08:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably because UNWRA call it Jenin camp. None of the camps in their list at the bottom are called refugee camps by them and WP mostly seems to be following that, see Palestinian refugee camps. Still, if it is common in sources, then that trumps official names of course. Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect that the UNWRA might have made a slightly stylistic/editorial choice to avoid iteratively repeating the word 'refugee' again and again, such as in the list of camps at the bottom that linked page, but the website also hops a bit between the two, with the link just below the main text reading: "Read more about Jenin refugee camp", and for any of the other "Camp" profiles, the "Read more about" text similarly reads "X refugee camp", so it seems very much of an avoidance of repetition issue on that site/with that organization. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the overreliance on UNRWA here has also led to too many descriptive names for camps being rendered as proper names. Even within the usage of the simplified term "Jenin camp", the uncapitalized 'camp' version is more prevalent than "Jenin Camp" all caps by a significant margin in Ngrams, and this in reflected in scholar too, where few sources capitalize 'camp'. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but if we change one, should we not change them all? To (Blah) refugee camp. Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TBH, for most of them, there might not be that many sources. Jenin is obviously one of the larger, more discussed and more prominent examples historically, hence the focus on its in academic literature. On the other hand, most of the other pages linked to at Palestinian refugee camps are underdeveloped stubs. Even so, it is already a complete mishmash of capitalized and uncapitalized 'camp's, so if your concern is inconsistency, that's already the par for the course here. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But in theory, yes, maybe. Here's Dheisheh, plucked at random, on Ngrams. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or Far'a, which has been in the news recently. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then again, where the place name is not an existing settlement, as with Jenin, perhaps the name itself is sufficient, per WP:CONCISE, such as with Dheisheh, where there is not much else that name can mean. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't trying to be awkward, I don't have any objection to the move (or any of them) as such. Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With Dheisheh, short of other meanings, the lone use has support. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 20 February 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved; doesn't seem controversial enough for an RM discussion. (non-admin closure) The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jenin Camp → Jenin refugee camp – "Jenin refugee camp" is the WP:COMMONNAME. See further discussion here. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 16:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For no reason[edit]

Hey you better check sources before telling something as propaganda... 13:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

True, however, you do realize that neither of you are allowed to edit this article because neither of you meet the requirements to do so. If you want to edit the page then you can make a request right here on this talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't the moniker "refugee camp" violate NPOV at this point?[edit]

The term "political refugee" is loaded, implying the existence of an aggressor who caused the refugee status. Inherent in the term "refugee" is an entitlement of ownership over the previous lands. Wikipedia holds no power to assign property titles to individuals, though. NPOV would require one to state, "The title of the previously held lands is under dispute by the parties involved." (Note the white, Western media does not get to assign title to one group or the other in accordance with their bias. Dominating the English-speaking sphere does not confer objectivity.) Also, it's pretty obvious this is a city, not a campground. So this term seems an attempt to diminutize the Palestinians here, making any acts towards them bring on paternalistic/maternalistic feelings of protectiveness. This is bias. Watch how the label can trigger a particular bent: Let's rename all US towns and cities, "Refugee camp," because the colonies were originally founded as means to escape English persecution. So, we have New York Refugee Camp, Boston Refugee Camp, Richmond Refugee Camp, etc. Inherent in this is that title remains to English properties. If the United States said, "We now feel like killing all the English and taking England back for ourselves," such is morally pre-approved by the "refugee" status which sets England up as the initial aggressor and Americans as having the greater claim to English property. So, when the United States invades and starts slaughtering the English, it isn't "aggressing" on England, they're just taking their ancestral land back! So, the right to self-defense of the English is removed, and now the English have to find someplace else to live, all because we have given title to Americans by labeling US cities as, "Refugee camps." Objectively, land has no title. In the end, ownership is all just a case of, "Might makes right." It violates NPOV for Wikipedia to assign title, which naturally crafts an argument that the side that Wikipedia grants title to should be given aid to "reclaim 'their' land". NPOV demands that all sides be treated as having equal right, with the disagreement being noted: "The English claimed ownership over England. The Americans also claimed ownership over England. This disagreement was the initial spark to the Fourth Punic War (don't ask)." While cheerleading for one side may be fun, it's not neutral. Neutral would be to refer to this as simply, "Jenin." NPOV outranks source terminology and editor consensus. No amount of people using terminology which cheerleads for one side should end with Wikipedia using terminology which cheerleads for that side. 2601:18B:8100:C479:B68B:3F04:5911:7921 (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories