Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Lifta


Past discussions

NO WP:RS sources here. Palestinian jeweley as ref ? Amoruso 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?? What is wrong in having "Stillman: Palestinian Costume and Jewelry" in the ref.? Lifta was an important center for Palestinian costume-making and is mentioned in the book. (Obviously, Stillman writes nothing about, say, the military events in 1948, but surely the article should not only cover those events?) Regards, Huldra 10:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, it is a pleasant change to see cultural information added to Palestine-related articles instead of the usual bloodshed and death. Please continue. --Zerotalk 12:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zero, nice to hear. I am surprised that nobody here has written about the costumes earlier; they are really, really gorgeous. Perhaps it is a reflection of the distribution of males/females on WP ;-P, Regards, Huldra 17:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifta means corridor in Aramaic. Below is the source:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1103858785397 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.185.218 (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2006‎

rv

@Debresser:, please read WP:NONENG, a part of WP:V, which directly disputes your assertion. nableezy - 19:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And further to that point, if you want to claim responsibility for an IPs edit here, you need to be able to say that you actually are wholly responsible for the material. Can you say that whatever that reference says, and yes it needs a translation, directly supports the material you put into the article? nableezy - 20:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The google.translate gives gibberish; ("Sloppy generations - Volume 10, Open University, p 83; Benjamin Eliav, the community during National Home, p 38;" etc) I´m rv, we need better source for this, Huldra (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are good. You probably meant that you would like to see the sources formatted in a more proper way. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, a. the 1RR does certainly apply. b. can you please translate the name of the books, authors, and publishers for us? And then give people an opportunity to look at it before you feel compelled to revert once more? nableezy - 21:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG says "a translation into English should always accompany the quote" and "editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided". Not the titles, and certainly not the authors' names.
Regarding 1RR I replied on my talkpage, and I think that is issue is best kept there, regardless of whether I was right or wrong.
I would also like to see Huldra reverted, since she removed perfectly acceptable information without good reason. Her stated reason "not aa (sic) single understandable citation" is simply untrue in view of the translations of the quotes, and is such a lousy excuse, that I think it is actionable per WP:ARBPIA. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, Have you personally checked the sources to see if they are reliable and being cited neutrally? That is the minimum you need to do in order to take responsibility for them. Zerotalk 23:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ZERO Yes, I have. I went to the library and made copies of them. That should have been obvious to you from the extensive quotations. Or did you think I made those up? No, really, ZERO, do yo understand what you are implying with this innocent looking question? Debresser (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really refusing to even translate the title of the author's name or the book or publisher? Did you even actually look at them? nableezy - 23:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy Yes, I have. I went to the library and made copies of them. That should have been obvious to you from the extensive quotations. Or did you think I made those up? No, really, Nableezy, do yo understand what you are implying with this innocent looking question? Debresser (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that I am refusing to translate anything, It is more that I am shocked by the rude and unjustified removal of perfect sources with that lousy excuse of a reason Huldra came up with. Until those sources, which I worked hard to obtain, are restored, you don't have the moral right to demand translations. Especially since WP:NONENG is absolutely and crystal clear that there is no demand whatsoever to translate anything but the quotes. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you for an author's name and publisher's name in English. That isnt unreasonable. For somebody who has already violated WP:1RR you seem to be relying quite heavily on lawyering your way around simple requests. nableezy - 00:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I am right about WP:NONENG, and I am rightly offended. I'd like to see somebody make a token of good faith in my direction by restoring my hard work, before going back to being my usual helpful self. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, I am asking in good faith that you tell me who the author and publisher are so I can see if I agree the sources are reliable. Could you please do that? This does not in any way need to be a dispute. A request, an answer, a smile and a good bye. nableezy - 00:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm the third source (no. 18) because according to my Atlas Carta book (Carta's Atlas of Palestine: From Zionism to Statehood) which cites The Haganah Book, pages 301-340, there was an attack by the residents of Lifta on Givat Shaul, Romema and Sanhedria on the 23rd of August. ISBNs and English names should be added for the convenience of the readers, but beyond that, I WP:AGF for the other sources and do not see a reason to remove this fact. If there is another reason other than the Hebrew, I"d like to hear it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as it seems, Debresser used the three sources cited in the Hebrew Wikipedia, but he also added quotes, which to me proves he has the books, maybe I am wrong. I"ve found the participation of Lifta in the riots cited in two other sources on the Hebrew Wikipedia, but I couldn't confirm them.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21 At least one editor is not suffering from the collective lack of logical faculties that seems to have struck all other editors here. Of course that shows that I saw the books themselves! Precisely as you say. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would"ve provided my own source, but technically, it cites yours.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, just at least add ISBNs and write the names of the authors in English.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your quotes could just mean you found it on a random website. And for somebody who has repeatedly made complaints about civility, your dig is a bit hypocritical. nableezy - 00:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I had found them on a website I would have used {{Cite web}} instead of {{Cite book}}, now wouldn't I? Or at least I'd have added a URL. Another bad faith implication. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could relieve any concern by doing something as simple as saying, in characters that are understandable by the majority of readers of the English wikipedia, the name of the author, title of the book, and publisher. That really is not asking that much. nableezy - 00:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thanks, now we finally have the name of the authors (In English) (Btw: imagine if I had used Arab writers information of Jewish history, using only their names in Arabic:.......it would have been reverted at once. You ALL know that. I am also extremely unimpressed with User:Sir Joseph, who has never edited this article (or its talk-page) before, and shows up only to revert.... )
  • I have a couple of questions, is "Dinur, Ben Tzion" Ben-Zion Dinur?? And is "Eliav, Binyamin" Binyamin Eliav??? The date of the publications would also help, and the date of the attacks? Huldra (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you "have been reverted at once"? I have seen Arabic texts here, and have not removed them. Certainly not when just the name of a person is spelled in Arabic. Bad faith assumption.
Ben-Zion Dinur yes. Binyamin Eliav too. I know about |author-link=, but saw no |editor-link=.Debresser (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Halamish's book "Jerusalem through the Ages" came out in 1994, Binyamin Eliav edited the book "יישוב בימי הבית הלאומי" in 1976, and the series "The Haganah Book" edited by Ben-Zion Dinur was published between 1954 and 1972, while the source is from volume B part 1, which came out in 1964. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and there is (|editor-link=), just added. It looks as if the one without a Wikipedia article (=Halamish) is definitely the best source.(?)
Btw, on which article (on Jewish subjects) have you seen the authors names given in Arabic (only)? Huldra (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Aviva Halamish is a professor. I saw she has an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia.
Don't remember. Nor do I remember the precise circumstances of that citation, but part was definitely in Arabic. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To answer another of your questions: the first two sources mention 23 August 1929. The third doesn't mention a date on the one page I copied, but obviously mentioned a date before that. 23 August was the first day of the week of the 1929 Palestine riots. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the author (or editor) in Arabic? Seriously? I can honestly say that I cannot recall ever seeing that. Not on Israeli subjects ..or even Palestinian, as I recall. (There might very well be some on the Islam-subject, though. Many of them are terrible....just like many of the Judaism or Christianity-articles) (With "terrible" here, I mean in a wiki-way; i.e., they have no sources, or bad, not WP:RS sources)
The date could be useful to add. Attacks like that didn´t come out of the blue, there was always some back story for it, and with the date that would be easier found. Huldra (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph mentions and links to 1929 Palestine riots, so I think that is clear enough. Whether it was right at the beginning, as it turns out it was, or during the subsequent days, is not crucial here, I think. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It will be useful for finding out the context, but wether it is added now, or just mentioned here, is not very important, presently, IMO, Huldra (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lifta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lifta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have "it is located on the spot of the Tanachic village "Nephtoah"" ...in the lead?

I removed it from the lead, as

  • A. most of these Biblical identifications are tentative, we cannot really be sure
  • B. Undue. Why mention that in the lead, and not, say, the Crusader name, (There are uncontested Crusader remains in the village)

Comments?

Huldra (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read any of the discussions if there were any, but if it's sourced then I think it should be included, and I think we could also include the Crusader name as well, but one reason not to (a small one) would be the historical aspect, the Crusades are more fairly recent and the Biblical aspect shows a direct and ancient connection to the place, that the Crusades ad a village there is most likely because it was a Biblical place. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Crusaders didn't have a clue about Biblical locations, (E.g. they thought that Capernaum was somewhere by the Mediterranean Sea). That the Crusaders settled at Lifta was more probably because its natural site, including a spring, which would have encouraged human settlement. (There is a reason why, say, the SWP always mention water sources.) To repeat, the Biblical connection is a possible connection, only. A speculation, if you like. Personally, I would not put possibilities in the lead, especially when we have so many facts about the place. The possible Biblical connection should be mentioned in the article, though, (with the proper sourcing), Huldra (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sir Joseph that its identification as the biblical Nephtoach should be mentioned in the lead paragraph, since it is widely acclaimed to be so by all modern Israeli archaeologists and/or historical geographers, and which place rightly fits the description brought down in the Hebrew Bible, as bordering between the territorial bounds of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.Davidbena (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: As I cited below, you are not correct about this. Zerotalk 05:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tanachic village "Nephtoah" should be mentioned as the it is the oldest settlement on the spot. That does not hold for the Crusader settlement, as far as I am concerned.
Please, Huldra, next time do not remove information from a lead without mentioning it in the edit summary... Debresser (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As they say, "Be careful what you wish for.". If previous settlements at a place should be mentioned in article leads, then there a couple of hundred Israeli towns/kibbutzim/etc whose leads should mention the Arab villages that they replaced only a generation ago. The practice is to mention previous identifications later in the article, except in some cases like places mostly notable as archaeological digs. You can't expect to start adding conjectural former identifications in one set of articles and not have definite former identifications in another set of articles. If you doubt "conjectural" in this case, here is an article by two famous archaeologists who think that Neptoah=Qaluniya. Zerotalk 05:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zero0000, I'm not saying that place names cannot be disputed. But in this case, with Lifta being identified with the biblical Nephtoach, there is a LARGE consensus that it is exactly so. The other views, therefore, are fringe-views.Davidbena (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a traditional view that has mostly prevailed since the 19th century, though I saw many reports that qualified it as "reputed to be" or "probably", and there are modern dissenters from that tradition. If an academic dispute includes very respected experts on both sides, it is not a fringe question. But this is not the question at hand, which is of what to include in the lead. Even if there is 100% certainly of the identification, it is still not clear that it has to be mentioned so early. We don't usually do that, and I indicated the likely consequences of changing the standard practice. There is a history section where history is more appropriate (and at that place we should mention the consensus view and also notable other views). Zerotalk 13:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at some of the sources:

Rashi's view (of the 11th century) that Nephtoach should be identified with a place called "Ein Etam" is now generally thought to have been an error, since that place has been identified with the general vicinity of Solomon's Pools.Davidbena (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Information: Yesterday (20 June 2017), I wrote Professor Ze'ev Safrai of Bar-Ilan University, asking him the following question:
רציתי לשאול את חוות-דעתך האם, לדעתך, יש לסמוך על הקביעה שכפר ליפתא שליד ירושלים הוא הגבול בין שבט יהודה לשבט בנימין בשם "מעיין מי נפתוח", המוזכר ביהושע (פרק י"ח, פסוק ט"ו), או שמא יש לקבוע אותו במקום אחר?
(Translation: "I wanted to ask your assessment, whether in your view we should rely upon that determination which says that the village of Lifta near Jerusalem is the actual border line between the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin by the name of "the spring of the waters of Nephtoah," and which is mentioned in Joshua 18:15, or should we fix its location elsewhere?")
Today (21 June 2017), I received this reply from him:
שלום. לדעתי הזיהוי טוב, הוא מבוסס מבחינת הקו המקראי. מאוחר יותר במאה השישית מזכיר נזיר אחד את מי נפתוח יחד עם קולוניה (מוצא) כמעינות גדולים, סמוכים לירושלים שייבשו בשנת בצורת. כמובן שניתן לשער שמדובר במעיין אחר, אך כל הנתונים מתאימים. בשאלת קו הגבול בין יהודה ובנימין אני פחות מעודכן. אל עד כמה שאני זוכר לא הייתה סיבה להתנגד לזיהוי זה. בברכה, זאב ספראי
(Translation: "Shalom. In my opinion, the identification is alright. It is based on the biblical line of demarcation. Later, in the sixth century, a certain monk mentions the waters of Nephtoah along with Colonia (Motza) as being large springs [of water], near unto Jerusalem, [and] which dried out during a year of drought. Of course, we could speculate that it refers to a different spring, but all the data coincides [with the present identification]. As far as the question of the line of demarcation between Judah and Benjamin, I am less informed. As far as I can recall, there was no reason to deny this identification.")---Davidbena (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons why many traditional identifications have been questioned (and sometimes completely overturned) recently is that a lot more information about sites is available due to excavation. The reason given by Gadot and Finkelstein for doubting the Lifta=Nephtoah identification is that they are unaware of any Iron Age remains there. By their analysis, if it wasn't inhabited in the Iron Age, it wasn't Nephtoah. It is quite a strong argument, though they don't claim to have proved it. They propose that Qaluniya, which is quite close and definitely occupied in the Iron Age, is a better choice. Incidentally, it might be just the translation but it sounds like Safrai also likes Qaluniya. Zerotalk 06:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000:, This is for your information: As for what you wrote about Gadot and Finkelstein "doubting the Lifta-Nephtoah identification" because they were "unaware of any Iron Age remains there," apparently they had not seen the Israel Antiquities Authority chief archaeologist's report (Dan Bahat) who documented the pool and the spring of Lifta in 1986, prior to being opened to the public, and where a burial cave and potsherds dating to Middle Bronze Age II and Iron Age II were found around the spring. See: Jerusalem, Lifta, Survey - 2010. Enjoy!Davidbena (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: I'm extremely far from home and have almost zero time. Did you notice that the report you just linked to says "No evidence that corroborates the identification of the site with biblical Mey Neftoah has been found."? Regarding sherds, every site in Palestine that had a reliable water source in the Iron Age has Iron Age sherds. Finkelstein means that he knows of no evidence that the site was occupied in the Iron Age, which is a stronger statement. Zerotalk 18:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that when Joshua delineated the boundaries of Judah and Benjamin and he writes, "the spring of the waters of Nephtoah," this is not to suggest that archaeologists were supposed to find a sign saying "the spring of Nephtoah." Therefore, when Yehuda Dagan and Leticia Barda wrote what they wrote there, in my view, they were being a little disingenuous. What matters most are its Middle Bronze Age II and Iron Age II potsherds, and the general recognition of boundaries belonging to Judah and Benjamin. In the view of many, the name Lifta (the Hebrew "nun" being replaced by a "lamed") is the greatest testimony that one could have, especially when the Byzantines long ago called the same place "Nephto." Have a nice trip (vacation) wherever you are.Davidbena (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Safrai also writes in English. If you'd like, I can provide you with his e-mail address and you can ask him yourself. BTW: It's interesting to note that the Byzantines long ago actually preserved the name Nephto, before the Arabs eventually corrupted the name to Lifta. Davidbena (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is a fine scholar, but he isn't an archaeologist so he isn't the right person to assess the physical evidence. Speaking of corruption, there's a theory that "spring of the water of Nephtoah" is itself a corruption of "well of Mernaphta" that appears in older Egyptian texts. Anyway, it doesn't matter for us; we won't solve the problem here and it isn't our job. We should just report the consensus, plus the dispute, and move on. Zerotalk 14:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that mention of Nephtoah has been in the article since the year of its creation, 2006. Over 10 years of consensus! Debresser (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has suggested removing Nephtoah from the article, so what is the point of that comment? Zerotalk 23:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000 Then what happened in this edit, with the sneaky edit summary which did not mention the removal of Nephtoah from the article? Debresser (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: Nephtoah was still in the article after that edit, so what are you talking about? You should apologize to Huldra for your false charge. Furthermore, it had been in a body section of the article from 2006 until much later when you put it in the lead as well. There is no 11-year consensus for your change. Zerotalk 14:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, oops for not noticing or remembering that I added that from the article proper to the lead in July 2016, but Huldra definitely made a mistake, if i were to assume good faith, when she didn't mention the removal in her edit summary, so if anybody has to apologize, I still think it is she. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, the thing is: I actually try to keep my abysmally high edit count as low as possible...so when I, e.g., add Hartmann, or Schick data, or, as in this case: both, I also typically do some copy editing with it. Here I did:
A. fixed a better 1922 ref,
B. ordered the bibliography alphabetically,
C. added Zochrot link,
D. added authorlink = Titus Tobler
E. fixed {{Reflist|25em}} to {{reflist|25em}}...as there has been a RfC about that (which now strangely has been changed back??), Oh and
F. removed a dubious claim, with an 85 year old(!) reference in the lead, which was included...without discussion last year..and which Davidbena now has included again <facepalm>
....and all of that, and then some, was included in the word ce. Yes, I actually though all of that was uncontroversial "house keeping." But silly me: I should of course have known that there is no issue too small not to disagree about when it come to the IP area....Huldra (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "dubious" about the source in the lead, since its conclusions are supported by the vast majority of scholarship today, just as we have been discussing here. Shouldn't we be assuming WP:Good Faith in what we do here?Davidbena (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removals are never just "ce". All the rest is fine with me to call so. Debresser (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove anything; I moved the sources down into the "Antiquity" section. Ok, so after my edit the speculation about the Biblical site was mentioned once...and not twice...in the article, I still count that as ce. (Note that I also moved the - unsourced- translation of "Nephtoah" down to under the "Antiquity" section.) IMO, we should only have the uncontested facts in the lead of an article of this size. Huldra (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000:, yes, I saw that view about "Mernaphta," but that is a fringe view. We cannot ignore the vast consensus here. If I'm not mistaken, even the renowned Israeli archaeologist and historical-geographer, Michael Avi-Yonah, places Nephtoah at Wadi Lifta.Davidbena (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David, you don't use the word "fringe" correctly. I agree that Lifta=Nephtoah is still the consensus, but that doesn't make everything else fringe. Avi-Yonah died more than 40 years ago and Finkelstein (who is as famous now as Avi-Yonah was then) has the advantage of 40 extra years of archaeological discovery. Lots of Avi-Yonah's identifications are now discarded. Also the Mernepta theory is widespread, certainly not fringe even though nobody can prove it. Only a small fraction of ancient identifications can be proved like mathematical theorems; they are always best-guesses based on a small amount of evidence. Even when the modern name is almost the same, the identification is not completely certain since names can move and several places can have the same name. In this case even the evolution of the name is conjectural. Zerotalk 23:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but Ze'ev Safrai is still alive today, and he knows the current academic consensus concerning this place name, and that is what he shared with us. BTW: Anyone comparing Arabic names to the old biblical names, one can easily see just how much some of these names have been corrupted over the years. Be well.---Davidbena (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC?

Ok, do I have to start a RfC about removing the disputed Lifta=Nephtoah from the lead, or can we agree that it should only be in the "Antiquity"-section? Huldra (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you put it like this, yes, well, why not, for the heck of it. You might loose that Rfc, you know. After all, the opinions are so far equally divided. If on the other hand you would have asked if perhaps we can reach consensus, then I would have been happy to go along with that direction as well. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I’m never too keen on starting a RfC, as they tend to become a number count, which is rather "dumbing down". However, I get the feeling there is no argument which will convince Davidbena (Davidbena: Please correct me if I’m wrong!) Huldra (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a consensus to leave it in the lead. Lifta is widely accepted as being the biblical Nephtoah.Davidbena (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus, I disagree with having it in the lead. Huldra (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra I would have agreed with you as well, and Davidbena would have had to bow to consensus. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem "bowing" to consensus. Let's see how this plays out. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Despite the scarce participation, there is consensus to oppose the inclusion of the sentence in the lead.Also, there was no consensus in the previous section.Godric on Leave (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the sentence "it is located on the spot of the Tanachic village "Nephtoah"" be in the lead, or should it only be in the "Antiquity"-section? Lifta has traditionally been thought of as being on the place of Nephtoah", but newer archeological evidence questions this, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, should not be in the lead, only in the "Antiquity"-section Huldra (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it should not be in the lead for two reasons. One is that the identification is no longer considered safe. The other is that we don't usually give ancient identifications in the the leads of articles. (We often give old names of continuously occupied places, but usually settlements that are thought to have once occupied the same location are only mentioned in history sections.) Zerotalk 21:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it should remain in the lead paragraph, just as it has already been agreed upon by way of consensus in the previous section of this Talk-Page. Only, I would suggest rewording it to read, "biblical village," instead of "Tanachic village."Davidbena (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. But change Tanachic to biblical, and add qualification - e.g. "considered by some to be located on the spot of the biblical village". A large portion of biblical locations are in various degrees of dispute (even more so than Lifta/Nephtoah) - it doesn't make this less notable. Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Per Huldra. In any case, keep "Tanakhic" over "Biblical". Debresser (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw-in my "two cents" here, the problem with writing "Tanakhic" is that we forget that most people here on Wikipedia do not speak Hebrew, and are unfamiliar with the expression. Per English-Wikipedia, it is always best to use the language readily understood by English speakers. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[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.

Changing - Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine to Infobox protected area

I corrected post-1948 settlement (the village was occupied by Jewish squatters who were there with the permission of the government until 2017 - [2]). The site is also a declared municipal nature reserve (though under Israel Nature and Parks Authority for quite some time) from the 1980s, and from 2017 a declared national nature reserve. I believe the correct infobox is "protected area". It definitely is not "former Arab villages" as the place was re-occupied since by Jewish families (which left in 2017) - so it should have had the current population count (and not an historic estimate). However, since I believe this will possibly be a contentious issue - I'm raising this in the talk page prior to changing.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is not a former Arab village if it was depopulated of its Arab residents? Anywho, I have no problem making a new article on the nature reserve, with a section here that references that. But an article on the village that was depopulated by Jewish forces is likewise appropriate. nableezy - 16:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the interim it became a Jewish village, before being abandoned and turned into a nature reserve. Places generally have one wiki entry covering all periods, even if the ingabitants changed. Some wiki articles on places have several population replacements in one article. The infobox usually covers the last inhabitants or alternatively the entire history.Icewhiz (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did it though? Did Israel ever recognize a village or a moshav or a kibbutz or anything by the name of Lifta? Or were there a group of people living in buildings that were depopulated of their owners that never formed a village called Lifta according to Israel? Because this for example flat out says Lifta was never repopulated since 1948. That a number of people squatted in buildings that didnt belong to them doesnt really change that, does it? nableezy - 21:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were originally some 300 families there - until 1969-1971 (after that - just 13 (and the 2012 Haaretz source refers to this mostly depopulated sate)- I believe it was treated as an outlying neighborhood of Jerusalem - as Lifta. There were some services there. After the 1971 depop - they set up a high school in the village - [3] which is still called Lifta High School (despite moving out of Lifta in 2001 to the German colony). Here's a source covering this (in Hebrew) - [4]. Here's a recent newspaper source (Hebrew) - [5] - They did were hooked up the electrical and water in the 50s as a result of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi's efforts, there were synagogues, a school, a clinic, and a "Tipat halav" (which is ministry of health operated). My understanding (confirmed by coverage of court ruling here in English - [6] (and [7]) - is that the settlement was recognized and supported by the state, but residents had no deed to the property, but rather lived there with the permission (they were sent there) of the state authorities but without ownership transferred to them - this setup subsequent issues when the land became valuable (as opposed to close to worthless as it was initially) - legally this is somewhat similar to Giv'at Amal Bet - the place is recognized, there is dispute as to whether the tenants have some ownership right or "are just residing with the permission of the state" (the de-facto and the more recently de-jure status is that they need to be compensated). So no, per the state of Israel, they were not just squatters in abandoned buildings.Icewhiz (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC) And it actually is still listed as an entity for municipal taxes ([8]).Icewhiz (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even the articles on the residents having some rights according to Israel introduce Lifta as a depopulated Palestinian village, and the one that I read (sorry I dont have the time to go through all of what you posted in English right now) says But the ILA said it still doesn't recognize Lifta residents' rights to their homes. The documents Yohanan found, it said, apply only to protected tenants - which the Lifta residents aren't. nableezy - 22:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's two separate issues - the ownership issue is interesting in its own right - but is immaterial (though the final settlement (this year) - was actually in favor of the Lifta residents) - it is not disputed that the state permitted them to live there (in property reverted to the state as per Israeli land and property laws#The 'Absentees Property Law') - the question regarding ownership was whether the state could, 20,30, 50, 70 years afterwards say - "I gave you permission up to now to live here for free (or for a rent), but enough is enough, leave within X time" (and then sell the property to whomever)... That the neighborhood was recognized by the state/municipality is evidenced by the public buildings, municipal taxes, and formal connections to water and electricity (something lacking in Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel). The question of whether this was (up to the final compensation and clearing in 2017) a recognized settlement is separate from land/house ownership (whether residents rent or own property - is immaterial usually for qualification of a group of dwellings).Icewhiz (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Changes

I see that Nableezy and Icewhiz are doing some lead changes, and just my two cents, it's improper to have a lead with XXX was a XXX and is now a XXX. It's more stylistic to say that Lifta is now a nature preserve and was once a village. We are in the present and it makes more sense to write it as such. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem making an article on the Mei Neftoach nature reserve. This however is an article on the village that was forcefully depopulated of its residents by Yishuv forces. As such it should be introduced as said village. If you have some policy or guideline that backs up your views on why something is proper or improper Im all ears. As it stands I see an opinion, and only that. nableezy - 16:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a little unclear then. It the article it states that the village was made into a nature preserve, not necessarily a part of a nature preserve. And everything I write is my opinion. I don't need a policy to state that it makes more sense to have an "it is" as the main sentence before a "it was" sentence. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am free to say I disagree and as you have no policy backing for your position there really isnt a need for a further response. nableezy - 16:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jews resided in the village following the war and until 2017 (more precisely - 300 families early 50s to 1969-1971, around 13 holdouts until 2017). I will note that this was a long and ongoing legal case that received quite a bit of coverage. It is currently a declared nature reserve. This should be in the lead - usually we specify in the lead the most recent use of a place. Should we expunge the Palestinians from the lead as well, and say this was a crusader village? The place was inhabited after 1948 - it became mostly uninhabited (except for a few houses near the top - next to the road) in 1969-1971 following an Amidar compensation agreement - with the holdouts evacuating for compensation in 2017.Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how any of that is relevant. The article Deir Yassin is not introduced with it is now the site of the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center, and in fact Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center is briefly introduced and has its own article. nableezy - 16:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was still called Lifta when inhabited by Jews. Should we say this was a Crusader village? A Mameluke village? We usually mention, in a place name, all inhabitants. This is also done with other settlements in Israel - e.g. Beit She'an which was an Arab town pre-1948. The same houses (and actually the remaining houses there today) - were houses jews lived in. It wasn't built on-top of the village (as Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center) - the village changed hands and inhabitants.Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the nature reserve - preserves the buildings (and spring) - it isn't some new construct - the buildings and the area around them are the reserve.Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I dont see how that is really relevant. We use WP:N to determine when a topic should have a its own article, and my position is that the Arab village depopulated of its residents by Jewish forces named Lifta meets that requirement. nableezy - 17:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, yes. Perhaps even the flight of Lifta residents is notable as a standalone article. Maybe. But this article is about Lifta the place, and Jews moved into the houses Arabs left and kept on calling it Lifta. Into the exact same houses.Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially the same discussion as in the section above. How about we pick one and go on from there? I mean we could have the same argument twice on the same page, but feel free to pick one of the sections to focus on. nableezy - 21:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Lever

Walter Lever's book was not a history book but the personal memoir of a non-historian. It is a good example of a primary source of unproven reliability that we should not use in Wikipedia. I also doubt that the citation is representative. What about the text on page 98 about the Jewish gangs who gave up their "humanitarian scruples, and set themselves a very simple forthright aim : to force all Arabs into quitting the area. Accordingly they attacked Lifta, Romema and Sheikh Baddr over a succession of nights. Small, fanatically brave squads of dynamiters..."? Zerotalk 17:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for information on the book and didnt want to remove it until I could determine it didnt meet WP:RS, so thanks Zero. nableezy - 17:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll source the sniping from elsewhere. On the Hebrew wiki this is sourced to Hebrew language sources, which seem ok (and this is not an obscure claim, it is easy to find sources), and I added Lever looking for an English language equivelant (preferred but not required for Englush wiki).Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can use Hebrew sources, provided they are reliable obviously, just please also provide translations of the relevant passage per WP:NONENG. nableezy - 21:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

defunct web portal sourced to Rami Nashashibi - RS?

This [9] - does not seem to be an RS to me. It is a webportal (since defunct), with no clear sources (it does mention Arif-al-Arif - but not any particular publication). Some of the information differs in detail to other sources - e.g. Benny Morris here - [10] - who claims the coffeeshop attack was in Romema (which is nearby), and that the killing of the informant (which Nashashibi sources to Morris) - Atiya Adel - a resident of Qaluniya (which is nearby - but a few km west of Lifta) was done in a petrol station at Romema (again - close to Lifta - but not Lifta).Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not used as a WP:RS, it is used as a WP:EL. My understanding is that Rami Nashashibi cooperated with Walid Khalidi, the text on the web site closely follows Khalidi, 1992 book, (though not all of Khalidi). Recall that Khalidi, 1992 used Morris, 1987, while we normally today use the "revisited" book, i.e. Morris, 2004. In the Morris, 2004 book, Lifta is mentioned on pp. 119, 120, 121 and 392. It should also be noted that the info Morris gets is typically from Haganah intelligence notes,
  • p. 119 notes 372, 374 on p. 154
  • p. 120, notes 381, 383 to 389, on p. 154
  • p. 121, note 404 on p. 155
  • p. 392 notes 318, 319 on p. 412
Huldra (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just an EL. It was sourcing the 1947-48 war - which I removed (reworked section to Morris and Krystall - which were available - and seem an acceptable RS). It is currently still the sole source for (note - this is possibly a copyvio as-is in the article) "The village had a mosque, a shrine for Shaykh Badr (a local sage), two coffee houses, a social club, and a few shops. It also had an elementary school, one for boys and one for girls. The farmers of Lifta marketed their produce in Jerusalem markets and took advantage of the city's services.". - which seems possibly correct (e.g. a mosque I've seen elsewhere mentioned, the rest fits in terms of size) But I'm less sure of the Shaykh Badr shrine - there was also a very close Sheikh Badr village (so a shrine to him in the village nearby his village namesake?)). Badr seems also connected to Dayr al-Shaykh which is near (and where he is buried - described in depth here (current day photoes) - [11]). Zochrot has similar text ([12]) - but I'm not sure I'd treat them as RS either - they are sourcing from al-Khalidi, Walid 1992 as well (at least they do state this explicitly - as sole source). I can't really find other sources for this (tried - online - seems to be mainly wiki or Zochrot/Nashashibi copies) - and I'm somewhat skeptic due to known shiekh Badr maqams being located closely but elsewhere - and it doesn't seem to mentioned in modern tour guides (which it would if it weren't destroyed - this is a well toured site. The Dayr al-Shaykh maqam is easy to online source).Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the mosque, see here. Regarding the Sheikh Badr wely, it is marked without a name on the PEF map: go here, look south from Lifta to "Kh. el Bukeiya", look just above the "k". By my measurement, it was 1.2 km distant from Lifta. My source for identifying this is the SWP volume on Jerusalem, which shows it on a detailed map at the start of Part II. There is no Sheikh Badr village on this map, nor on any map I can find before 1940 or so. Zerotalk 22:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sheikh Badr village is mentioned in 1948 sources (And also on this 1945-6 map [[13]] - it is to the south east of Lifta, just south of Romema). It is also supposedly on a 1938 map - [14]. Looking the PEF map - I can't really make out what you mean by above the 'k' (I do see "Kh. el Bukeiya" - so I do see the 'k' - just not what you mean exactly) - but that would be south of the Jaffa road - which is outside of Lifta proper (see the topographic survey of Palestine map from 1945-6 - [15]) - Lifta is on the slope between the road and Wadi esh Shami. A few outlying buildings reach up to the road - but that's it. I don't see a sheikh tomb by El Buqei in the 1945 map. I suspect this may be a case where the wali was/is near Lifta mentioned along-side Lifta as long as the Khirbot were small - once they grew, what was one a small Khirba of a few houses would be counted/mentioned separately. I think we should probably remove "shrine for Shaykh Badr (a local sage)" from the Lifta article. I'll note that I did list "Lifta, Romema, and Shaykh Badr" (as some sources do) in the 1948 events - so it is mentioned (the 3 faced similar circumstances in late 47, and it also seems there is some mixup in locations in some sources - particularly regarding Lifta vs. Romema (e.g. the cafe attack)).Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC
On the PEF map it is a small circle with a crescent above it, as welis are usually depicted. Now I see it on the 1945-6 map too: look for "Esh Sh. Badr" in tiny letters midway between the larger locality names Romema and Esh Sheik Badr. I agree that it is hard to describe it as being in Lifta in the 1940s, but before there was a village of Esh Sheik Badr maybe that wasn't so strange. It depends on whether the people of Lifta were the ones who took care of it, which is something we can't tell from maps. Zerotalk 10:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the 1800s, probably just about anything between Lifta and the Jerusalem walls could, and probably was, described as Lifta or around Lifta (this is typical of mother villages with nonexistent oe very sparse small khirbot around). Determining who was in control of the wali itsellf is probably difficult (and is often non binary... Could serve more than 1 community, could be some wise man in charge who lives onsite, could be abandoned at times, etc)... Regardless - I do not think this could be describes as in Lifta but as in the general vicinty of Lifta, and from the 1930s-1940s (at least, and this is described in this context) as being in a new village (or enlarged khirba) of Sheik Badr. In short I think this should be redacted from the Lifta entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs)

Caption for current photo used in article

The current article has a photo of the village "Lifta" (Nephtoah) where the caption below it reads: "Depopulated homes on the hillside." I have suggested that the word "depopulated" be replaced with "deserted," since that is the common English word used for houses whose occupants have left either of their own volition, or who have been forcibly removed. The word "depopulated" is used instead for towns and cities; not for houses! It is, therefore, in the best interest of Wikipedia (IMHO) to improve the language style of this article whenever possible. As for the village's history, it is well known that Lifta is one of many villages formerly inhabited by an Arab population that was removed in 1947–48 because of a long history of hostilities, as mentioned already in the article's lede and elsewhere.Davidbena (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David, David, if you read the history of the 1948 war, it is clear that the Yishuv wanted all Palestinian villages on the way to Jerusalem emptied...friendly or not. (The Deir Yassin villagers were known to be very friendly with their Jewish neighbour..they were still slaughtered). And "deserted" still imply they left voluntarily.. in translate.google.com "deserted" gives the synonyms: "abandoned, thrown over, jilted, cast aside, neglected, stranded..." These houses weren't "cast aside". And as I said: the picture clearly shown many houses...not only one. Huldra (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but the homed were re-occupied by Jewish refugees shortly thereafter and afterwards by immigrants. These Jewish residents abandoned (most of the village with the exception of some 13 houses) the houses some 20 years later due to poor sanitation and better housing available in the city. So, regardless of the claim above, the houses were willingly abandoned by their last residents.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That illegal Jewish squatters left the houses, should have equal weight to its original Palestinian owners being expelled? Where else does this apply? Huldra (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They were legally settled there by authorities, and were compensated when they left.legal determination in 2017 It is unclear as to why you would call them illegal - in fact it would seem to be a BLP vio.Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. But then... not everyone needs to go to court to settle their status! Huldra (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Oxford online dictionary, "deserted" simply means: "(of a place) empty of people." See Oxford Dictionary. That is the proper description for the caption, without going into details. The details are obtained in the article.Davidbena (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "deserted" as proposed by Davdbena, for 3 reasons: 1. linguistic, as per Davidbena 2. historical, as per Icewhiz 3. per Wikipedia policies and guidelines to use neutral wording. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1948 ?

@Nomoskedasticity: - re this revert - please WP:NPA. People lived in Lifta until 2017 - as clearly evident in the article and in sources therein - this one - stating that it was depopulated in 1948 is misleading, given that it was resettled shortly thereafter. Furthermore, while Lifta was attacked by Yishuv forces - it was abandoned by it's Arab residents not due to a military assault but due to an evacuation order - this is made clear by Morris for instance (a sourced in the article).Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in discussion that tosses disingenuous wiki-acronyms around for a perfectly reasonable edit summary that referenced the edit. If you think I should be sanctioned for it, please proceed immediately to AE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't contesting that Lifta was populated until 2017 (as clearly evident by several sources and the article body itself), then I shall be reinstating the edit.Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite obviously not what I said. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So why are we presently displaying a place that was inhabited until 2017 as abandoned since 1948?Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Morris' summary is perfectly good in the infobox and is supported by Morris' text. Evacuation of women and children due to the danger does not contradict "depopulated". Women and children were also evacuated from Gush Etzion due to the danger, but those settlements were also depopulated by any reasonable assessment. In both cases the root cause was military assault by the opposing side. Now you are right that the place was then repopulated by Jews, like many other depopulated Arab villages, but we aren't going to go through such articles and pretend there was some sort of continuity in 1948 when we know that there was actually an earthquake. Suggest an addition to the infobox to indicate a repopulation by Jews if you want, but don't just delete good information. Zerotalk 13:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Morris's accounting - the actual text - The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, page 120 - does not indicate military assault was the cause. He does cover skirmishes between Jews and irregulars around and in Lifta (A Lehi raid on 29 Jan blowing up three houses), however it would seem the irregulars (and the Arab civilians previously (per Morris - leaving, returning, and then leaving again)) left the village without an actual assault actually evicting the defenders (probably since holding it was militarily untenable) - per Morris on page 120 in early Feb 1948 - which does not quite jive with the infobox.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity You initial attitude, that you won't explain your controversial edit and are willing to be taken to WP:AE, is not in the spirit of community editing, and is not likely to be appreciated by your fellow editors, or WP:AE for that matter.
The fact that some women and children left it earlier, does not qualify as depopulating. However it is true, as the article says clearly, that the village was abandoned by order of Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tendentiousness of these arguments is exactly what will likely be of interest in an AE discussion. But if you'd prefer to report me, please do be my guest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What "tendentiousness"? And what "arguments"? These are facts that are in the article already. I distinguish a certain lack of good faith and community spirit in your tone. Not to mention belligerency. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero is spot on, as usual. Morris lists Lifta as being depopulated January 1948 as a result of a military assault. The idea that Debresser or Icewhiz can make their own determination that it wasnt really depopulated then is kind of funny but not in keeping with OR and RS. The removal was tendentious and disruptive. nableezy - 19:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the idea that the Palestinians being driven from the village is somehow made not a depopulation of the village because Jews took up residence in that village after is rather out there. nableezy - 19:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moriss's text, on page 120 in the same book, is not in agreement with his table on page xx - neither in the particulars (assault vs. evacuation) nor in the dates (Jan vs. Feb). The village was certainly depopulated in 1948, however it was shortly thereafter repopopulated - and remained populated until 1969 (fully)-2017(a number of houses) - the current infobox implies the place was abandoned, and left abandoned, from 1948 onward - which is most certainly not the case for this location.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Im aware. He however classifies the action that led to its depopulation as a military assault on the village. I see you not disputing that he does in fact do that. He writes that on Jan 29 the Irgun assaulted the village blowing up several houses. And that the villagers were all gone by February (not in February). None of that contradicts depopulated as a result of a military assault by Jewish forces in January of 1948. As far as the settlement by Jews following the depopulation of the natives that does not in any way negate the depopulation. It is nice of you to recognize that. It would be nicer still if you did not make an edit that does not recognize that, claiming that the village was only abandoned in 2017 because of the Jewish residents who lived there until then. If you would like to include information on the settlement of Jews into this depopulated Arab village by all means do so, discuss at the template talk whether or not such a parameter might be added. Removing the depopulation event however is tendentious and disruptive, to use the phrasing of the discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 20:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NPA please. Lehi, not Irgun, and he does not state that the 29 Jan assault led to the evac. Text is usually preferred to a table in an appendix. I did not remove the 1948 events from the lede or the text. Presenting an until recently populated location (2017), as being abandoned since 2017 is a gross NPOV violation - the infobox is supposed to present a summary of the article - and the information currently presented is false (as the settlement continued to exist as a human settlement). Perhaps the infobox's type should be modified to the standard ghost town infobox, as unlike other 48 locations this location continued fuctioning as a human settlement with the same name for decades later.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single personal attack in my comment to you. I said an edit was tendentious and disruptive, and it was. If you would like to report me for personal attacks for that by all means do so, but this petty game of saying "NPA please" when there are none to begin with is just that, petty, and I for one wont just pretend otherwise. The date of depopulation and cause are sourced to Morris, and despite you not liking it that appendix is still a reliable source. Nothing in what he writes in the text contradicts it in any way. The village was depopulated, you literally just said so yourself. Nothing in the infobox says that it was not later repopulated, only that it was depopulated of its native inhabitants in this month, sourced to Morris. Further tendentious removals may well be reported for disruptive editing. nableezy - 23:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calling an edit disruptive is a personal attack. Morris is inconsistent on Lifta in the same book between a brief appendix table mention and his actual text - saying the appendix is reliable in such a situation doesn't fly. An infobox presenting a populated settlement as being abandoned years prior to its actual abandonment is a serious factual and NPOV issue. Now, do you have a constructive suggestion on how we might prrsent that this village was populated until 2017?Icewhiz (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
lol report me for personal attacks then. nableezy - 21:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Civilians often, in fact usually, try to leave areas of fighting if they can. Evacuation by one side of their more vulnerable residents for the dual purposes of both protecting them and making it easier to conduct the fight is also commonplace. Those are the phenomena Morris describes and neither of them contradict his summary that the depopulation was due to the fighting. It is your original research that won't fly. Incidentally, Debresser needs to refer to a dictionary for the meaning of "abandoned". Zerotalk 05:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox does not, despite the distortion offered above, does not say the village was "abandoned". It gives a date of depopulation, sourced to Morris as January 1948. That does not preclude a later settlement by another group. Regarding your latest edit, nowhere in the cited source does it describe what occurred to the Jewish residents as a depopulation. You are trying to equate essentially an eminent domain claim to the forcible removal of a native people. That is honestly outrageous. If you would like to add a field to describe if and when a certain depopulated native village was repopulated by Jews then do that. Equating the two as you did in this article is both disruptive and, given the source doesnt even support it, in violation of several content policies. nableezy - 21:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ive done that for you btw, if you would like to add repopulated dates there is a field repop you can use. nableezy - 21:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease and desist from calling good faith attempts to rectify a serious misrepresentation (that the village was abandoned from 1948 onwards) as disruptive. Per Haaretz - "The last of the families living in the Lifta neighborhood at the entrance to Jerusalem will leave their homes this week". Per oxforddictionaries depopulate: Substantially reduce the population of (an area), per mw - depopulate: to reduce greatly the population of. Depopulation is not associated with any particular cause (war, disease, court orders, etc) - it simply the act of an inhabited place become uninhabited. Ergo, Haaretz when stating the entire population of the village as leaving in 2017 - is describing a depopulation. This is plain and simple English - and should not be up for discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please stop engaging in disruptive and tendentious editing. Your source does not once claim what you put in an encyclopedia article, and your OR above violates Wikipedia policy. The fact that you use ergo should make that fairly obvious to an editor with even the teensiest amount of good faith. The article does not once claim that the village was abandoned from 1948 onwards. That is likewise a dishonest statement. nableezy - 14:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What happened in 2017 wasn't in the same galaxy as what happened in 1948 and it is not reasonable to juxtapose them as if it was. The simplest thing is to give an ending year for the Jewish repopulation. The title of that field can use a rethink. Zerotalk 06:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unreasonable is the very lightest word that I can imagine using here. nableezy - 14:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navel gazing much?

Seriously, when this place was an Palestinian village for hundred of years, then the place for some Jews a few decades...and the modern Jewish part gets twice text as the Palestinian in the lead???

Guys, navel gazing much? Huldra (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the section on the Muslim period (or perhaps add info on the Crusader stable, or previous settlements going back tot he iron age) - though one must note that for most of its history it was a very small village - the Muslim population peaked during the mandate period, but was low prior to that - and consequently there is little coverage of this place beyond census data, very brief travel log mentions, and a battle that occured nearby. The lede is presently one short paragraph - 126 words - there is nothing in the lede that needs to be excised, though the ordering does defy normal conventions (we usually state the last occupants first, prior to going into history). Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again: one sentence on the Palestinian era, two on the very short Jewish era. Sorry, your navel might be interesting to you, but it is not that interesting to anybody else, Huldra (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for modern section to be larger than section about previous centuries> It is all a matter of sources. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It is common for modern section to be larger than section about previous centuries" ...Huh? ..This is rubbish, Debresser, and you know it.Huldra (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources treat the modern era at much greater length than previous eras. It is in fact quite difficult to find much at all written on Lifta prior to the mandate period. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Evacuated"

Sigh...Morris gives as "Cause of depopulation" "Military assault on settlement", see p. XVI and p. XX, village #363.

On Morris, 2004, p. 120 it is clear that while women, children and the old were told to evacuate by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni, the men were ordered to stay put. Eventually, after much fighting, they also left (those who were still alive.)

That some editors want to change this to that all the villagers "evacuated" is completely shameless. It tells me that you are not here to write an encyclopaedia; you are her to write propaganda. Shame on you, Huldra (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your opinions about what editors are here for to yourself: WP:NPA!
The article says: "On 4 December 1947, Lifta became one of the first places from which some Arabs evacuated, when some women and children evacuated from Lifta after being told by Arab authorities to make room to house a military company." "and were then ordered to evacuate again by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni"
With three instances of the word "evacuate" and none of "depopulate" why the fuck wouldn't you use the word "evacuate" unless you had a pro-Palestinian POV from here till Ramallah, huh? Debresser (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How shocked should I be that in the same post that somebody writes keep your opinions about what editors are here for to yourself: WP:NPA! that they follow it up with why the fuck wouldn't you use the word "evacuate" unless you had a pro-Palestinian POV from here till Ramallah, huh?

To the point, Morris is clear that the village was not evacuated, it was depopulated through a military assault. I agree the repeated use of evacuated, outside of the women and children who were told to leave, is rather shameless. nableezy - 16:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to correct the muddled language in the Mandate section where it seems that Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni ordered villagers to leave, and not just the women, children, and old to leave and the men to stay. And the interesting lack of why the village was depopulated (the Lehi bombings). nableezy - 16:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have every confidence that this issue can be corrected so that an accurate historical representation will be conveyed here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, Morris does not say the village was evacuated. He says women, children and the elderly were. He also says that the Lehi bombed the village prior to it being abandoned, and he gives the cause of depopulation as a "military assault on settlement". The village was not evacuated, and the misrepresentation that had existed in the text has now been corrected. nableezy - 02:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Morris has an "M" in a table. In the actual text he describes evacuations and abandonment - not an assault. Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, he describes the Lehi raiding the village and blowing up three houses at the end of January. And after that the village was empty. And, as you note, he gives the cause in the table for the depopulation to be that military assault on the village. nableezy - 16:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the evacuation was ordered by the Arab commander of the village, then it was an evacuation. Admitted, an evacuation can have many reasons, one being a military assault, but it remains an evacuation.
I would also like to point out to Huldra, that till such time as there is consensus for the change from"evacuation" to something else, she should refrain from changing the text, or she will be reported for slow edit warring and being disruptive. Not to mention WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. yeah, I get it: anyone disagreeing with you are "disruptive" (you, of course, are not....) Nice try. Again, to repeat: Morris gives as "Cause of depopulation" "Military assault on settlement". You do not get to cherry pick any other reason, Huldra (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, just editors who edit war to make a change to a stable text with an edit that has no consensus, such editors are disruptive. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, there was no evacuation ordered by an Arab commander. Women and children were evacuated. The men were ordered to stay put. Following that, Lifta was assaulted by the Lehi, who blew up several houses. Following that, the village was abandoned. Morris gives the cause of depopulation as that military assault. Its on page 120 of Birth revisited. nableezy - 21:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the sources in this very same article say otherwise. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh which sources say otherwise? nableezy - 19:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An "M" in a data table. We should follow Morris's text. Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, the text supports the table. Zerotalk 08:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the text supports the table. And your dishonest representation of Morris, removing that the men were ordered to stay put and that some or most of the villagers returned is deceitful. Ill be fixing that again. nableezy - 17:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to support your claims with quotes and links. Because I don't believe a think you say without seeing it. See my comment above. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the source Debresser. I dont really care what you believe. In my edition of Morris Birth Revisted, page xviii, Lifta listed as depopulated with cause M (military assault on settlement) in January 1948. On page 120:

By 1 January, most of the villagers had apparently left (for Ramallah), but armed irregulars or Arab Legionnaires were still in place. On or around 15 January, the villagers were ordered to return home and apparently some, or most, did. A week later, the village was visited by Abd al Qadir al Husseini, who ordered the menfolk to stay put and 'the children, women, and old' to leave. Women and children were seen leaving. The LHI raided the village and blew up three houses on 29 January. By early February, all or almost all of Lifta's inhabitants were back in Ramallah

If you are going to call me a liar you should at least try to pick up a book and read it yourself. nableezy - 19:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser you are misrepresenting the sources here. Seemingly purposefully so. Lifta was not evacuated, and repeatedly claiming it was is tendentious and disruptive. nableezy - 19:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morris quite clearly describes an evacuation - with fighting age men remaining with the irregular militia that took up positions in the village.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An evacuation of women and children. Not of the village. I really doubt anybody is this dense as to not get this point. But if the men stayed the village was not evacuated. nableezy - 21:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am purposefully changing your misrepresentation of the sources. The cause may be military assault, but that come in many variations. In this case, it was an evacuation by Arab commander. The men stayed, that means that the village was not evacuated? Without women and children there is no village! Not to mention that according to your quote, there is no explanation given for the fact that the men left. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are you completely missing the multiple times Ive quoted Morris? The explanation is The LHI raided the village and blew up three houses on 29 January. Yes, the men and the irregulars stayed, and that makes it so the village was not evacuated. You are taking a source that very specifically says the village was ordered not to be evacuated and using it to say it was evacuated. And removing that Morris very specifically says the village was abandoned due to a military assault. Well done. nableezy - 22:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In page 120 Morris writes "the first mass evacuations..." at the beginning of the paragraph describing Lifta. So Morris is calling this an evacuation. Al-Husseini ordered the old to leave as well - leaving just fighting age men in the village.Icewhiz (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And then they came back, as Morris writes. How do you not get that? nableezy - 16:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since this is happening again, Walid Khalidi in All That Remains calls it a "depopulation". I dont have it handy to cite the page right now, but I can add it later as a specific reference for "depopulated". nableezy - 01:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

page 300. Zerotalk 10:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2017 the last Jewish residents left Lifta"

There's a bit of a dispute over the sentence In 2017 the last Jewish residents left Lifta, and the village area is now an Israeli nature reserve. with claims that it is unsourced [16]. That's not true; the referenced content In June 2017 the last Jewish residents left the village following a settlement with the government who acknowledged they were not squatters but rather resettled in Lifta by the appropriate authorities. In July 2017 Mei Neftoach was declared a national nature reserve. supports the claim, which is sufficient for this to be included in the lead. That said, the sentence wasn't removed in the lead, only in the body (where it is very redundant). I don't see any reason to repeat this sentence in the body where it was removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, every sentence/paragraph has to be sourced in the IP area, saying that it was sourced earlier in the article is not enough, I'm afraid. But I agree with you about the repeat. As for mentioning it in the lead, that is discussed above. (see "Navel gazing much?") Huldra (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, not every thing needs to be sources in the lede - particularly when clearly sourced in the body. The date of the final depopulation of the village, in 2017, is clearly relevant for the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken revert

This revert, based on the mistaken claim that the statement has no source, ignores that this is the article's lead, summarizing the article, and the sources are in the appropriate section. Huldra, you should know better than to repeat a mistaken edit that has been reported on WP:ANI just to thwart me. Now please undo your mistake. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See section above, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it was removed as being repetitive, not as being unsourced. So the edit summary was misleading. Anyways, so be it. By the way, obviously, something that was sourced once, does not need to be sourced a second time. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morris cause

Can somebody explain to me why the line on Benny Morris giving the cause of depopulation as military assault on the village is being removed? nableezy - 19:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is aboht Lifta. It is not about Morris's book and tables therein.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Come again? The table lists Lifta. It gives a cause. Why is that being removed? nableezy - 21:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick You were twice wrong with this edit. 1. This sentence was removed not because anybody contests that Morris wrote so, but because it is not necessary nor specific enough. And in this I agree with Icewhiz. 2. What Nableezy is misinterpreting in Morris is that the assault is not the direct reason the village found itself without a population, nor is a military assault in itself a sufficient reason for that. The direct and sufficient reason is that the Arab commander told women and children to leave, which is called to "evacuate". And Morris himself calls it so clearly, as quoted above. So @Nomoskedasticity was also wrong when he barged in with this edit, because as a matter of fact, the word "evacuated" describes what happened in the most direct and unambiguous way, while referring to a military action going on in the area explains nothing yet in and of itself. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only Debresser thinks that a village without its women and children is a village without a population. Given the originality of this bizarre claim, we are entitled to ignore it. Zerotalk 10:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And without its old men - whom Al-Husseini ordered should leave as well. The village was a base for irregular militia, and only fighting age men from the village remained. Morris refers only to militia following the evacuation, and yes - in page 120 Morris clearly writes "the first mass evacuations..." at the beginning of the paragraph describing Lifta. Lifta in January did not have a civilian population.Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The details given by Morris should be cited in the relevant part of the article. Morris' expert summary should be cited in the summary part of the article (i.e. the infobox). That is known as "accurate reporting of a reliable source". You have not provided the slightest reason why we should prefer to follow your analysis, known as "original research", instead. I'm not interested in engaging your broken analysis. We should edit in accordance with policy. Zerotalk 12:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is broken here is omitting old men as well. However, I am happy we are in agreement that the imprecise description of Morris's table should be removed from our prose.Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.
@Zero Morris doesn't specify what the men remained for. If to show their presence, then it is populated. If to fight, then it is not. A village with a bunch of soldiers is not a populated village. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Morris says cause is military assault. Full stop. You dont get to make up things beyond that. nableezy - 16:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Debesser: Your personal analysis is broken, but anyway you undermine your own case. If Morris doesn't specify why the men remained, that's even more reason to accept Morris' summary rather than to invent one of our own based on our own assumptions. Zerotalk 00:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@:Nableezy Morris by no means is the end of argument for a conscientious Wikipedia editor. If he writes something general, which can be specified, then we are not bound to his words.
In any case, I stand by my argument that leaving fighting-age men in the village was clearly meant as a fighting force, and as such means that the village was de facto not populated any more. The presence of a military force is not the same as being populated. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, the village was not evacuated. Morris is clear on this. You are making things up in the article. Morris says it was abandoned due to a military assault. It was not evacuated prior to an impending assault. Your claim that if he writes something general we can specify what he means is both nonsensical and against our policies, specifically WP:OR and WP:V. You cannot claim things that the source does not say. It does not say the village was evacuated due to an impending military assault. That is a straightforward distortion of the cited source. Nobody, literally nobody, cares one whit about your claim that leaving fighting-age men in the village was clearly meant as a fighting force, and as such means that the village was de facto not populated any more because guess what, you are not a reliable source. Your view on this simply does not matter. What matters is what the source says. And it says following the Lehi bombings the village was emptied. It says that the Arab order was for the men to stay. That is in direct conflict to what you, again, misleadingly put in the article. Kindly stop making things up in encyclopedia articles. nableezy - 16:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, Morris has a specific code for abandonment on Arab orders, one on influence of nearby town's fall (which would closest match impending assault), and one on "military assault on settlement". He does not list Lifta as being abandoned an Arab orders, as you claim in the article. He does not list Lifta as being abandoned due to a nearby town's fall. He lists its depopulation as being due to a "military assault on settlement". nableezy - 16:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latest change

In this change Gilabrand, (who is still topic-banned from the IP area) with a deceptive edit-line (="move down") not only moves the "archaeology"-section down, but also changes the headline from "Attempts at biblical identification" to "Biblical era". (Hmm, I really should take Gilabrand to AE for this).

I changed the headline back, this was reversed by User:Sir Joseph with edit-line "non reason to use this subject header, keep all headers uniform, as in this is the Biblical age, the next one is iron age, roman age, etc. The section says there is an attempt at identifying Lifta as,,,,,"

SJ: the difference between the other headlines (Iron Age, Roman and Byzantine periods etc) is of course that the evidence of those eras are undisputed. The so-called "Biblical era" is, to be blunt: pure speculation.

Please change it back, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and changed back. nableezy - 22:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, you're using a POV header title, which of course is not allowed. The section is the era, and it's the Biblical Era, the section has the information about that section, and it discusses that there is information about if Lifta is the same as other places discussed during the Biblical Era. But the header should be Biblical Era. Obviously, it won't get changed back because this is a numbers game, but you are wrong. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed the issue, namely that the info in the so-called "Biblical era" is just speculation. You make it sounds as if it undisputed. Huldra (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, It could be disputed, but the era is the Biblical Era. The information inside the section already says that. The header is supposed to be non-POV. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not the Biblical Era...it is the alleged Biblical Era. There is a difference. You are trying to make it into something undisputed, which it is not. Huldra (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the section does not mention that there are those who disagree, this is undisputed. In any case, the word "Attempt" should not be part of the header, even if it were disputed, to keep the header short and simple. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"considered by some" != "undisputed"; I thought that was obvious. Well, this has taught me one thing: to take Gila straght to AE whenever she pulls such a stunt, Huldra (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

This is a place with undisputed documented history going back hundreds of years.

Still, 4/5 of the lead is about what has happened since 1948? The is completely WP:UNDUE. I will (re)move some of the post-48 stuff into the "State of Israel"-paragraph, unless somebody can convince me of its "vital importance", Huldra (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question of due or undue is not a function of years, but of notable events. I'd keep that in mind, and be careful not to remove too much from the lead. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even the most basic reading of WP:N and WP:NPOV would prove that false. Notability has nothing to do with the content of articles. It is strictly a measure of whether or not a topic merits its own article. The in a nutshell of WP:N should make that clear. nableezy - 02:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not much of the post-1948 is notable anyway. Zerotalk 02:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@nableezy The lead should summarize the article. The article should be about things that are notable. As long as you edit with these simple things in mind, everything should be fine. Debresser (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, again, notability has nothing to do with article content. Please actually read WP:N. It is strictly about whether a topic merits its own article. Notability has not one thing to do with the material within an article. nableezy - 14:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK: the Jewish residents never built anything, or left anything of physical nature there; as I understand it, they just took over the homes that were already there, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@nableezy Please read my posts again. I used normal English, not Wikilawyer language. When I said "notable" I wasn't referring to the Wikipedia notability guidelines, but simply to being notable, as in something that we should mention in the article, as opposed to non-notable events that we shouldn't write about. It is sad that I need to explain this. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats just special. nableezy - 17:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

I would like to edit this page, as it is false historical narration of the expulsion of Palestinians from their houses. The narration is purely made to justify the acts of the Zionist Apartheid state of israel. 82.146.175.2 (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

The recent changes completely changed the scope of this article from the depopulated Palestinian village to an article about a nature reserve. The changes also introduced several unsourced or poorly sourced material, and included some outright bogus claim, as well as repeatedly using an anachronism for the name of the village throughout its history. Changes to the scope of the article and title require consensus here, not one editor erasing, once more, an entire Palestinian village. nableezy - 07:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your opinion. However, I just disagree with your assessment. This is just one of many Israeli nature reserves and national parks of historic value to Israel, and I added the infobox to bring the article in line with others of the similar topic. I added quite a few references all of which were from reputable sources such as Columbia University Press, major media outlets, Jerusalem Post, also the Bible because Mei Neftoach (the official and historical name of this place since 1000 BCE until the Ottoman occupation) is referenced several times in the Book of Yehoshua. I am not sure if it is mentioned in the Quran as well, but it is likely. I am not sure what you meant by "erasing once more", I have not edited this page prior to this. The history of this archaeological site has been erased from Wikipedia, and I tried to rectify that by adding some more information but you "erased" it. I appreciate your suggestion of a separate page for the nature reserve that this site comprises, I may create such an article. I understand you are happy with the article the way it is. I just wanted to convey the diverse history of the site, it is not exclusively Palestinian, it has Jewish and ancient Israelite history as these were the first people to inhabit the area now comprising Mei Neftoach/Lifta in the Iron Age, as well as Babylonian, Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Ayyubid, Ottoman, British, and Jordanian ties as well. The long, rich and varied history of this site deserves to be fleshed out and have attention. I will refrain from editing this page further, I think the idea of two separate article (one for the nature reserve, one like this) is a good idea, so it doesn’t take too much away from what is here already.Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You conveyed that diverse history by a. claiming that "The village was abandoned after the local Arab residents took up arms against their Jewish neighbors and the nascent State of Israel, during the early part of the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine." when the sourcing says that the residents fled following an assault on the village by Jewish forces, b. claiming that it is established fact that Lifta is the site of the Biblical Mei Neftoach, which is in fact a disputed claim, c. repeatedly referring to a place that even Israeli sources call "Lifta" (eg ToI, JPost, Haaretz) by a name used by almost nobody besides the Israeli Parks Authority and even at that fairly recently. nableezy - 09:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too think it is inappropriate to subsume Lifta into a decidedly modern and particularist notion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-NPOV nonsense from an editor who ought to know better.Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are other editors supposed to think that Nableezy edits from a neutral point of view, when most of your edits are pro-Palestinian biased? This is not an attack, I actually admire your dedication to this aim as there are few people on the other side who are as dedicated on Wikipedia, when they should be nonetheless. I, however, am neutral, I am not an Israeli citizen nor a Palestinian citizen. Why is the lead saying this is a Palestinian village, when all settlements at that time were Palestinian including all Jewish towns because this is what everyone was called at the time of the abandonment of Mei Neftoach, during the British Mandate period, the Arabs within Israel (this is part of internationally-recognized Israel, within the green line), considered themselves to be Arabs, they did not call themselves Palestinians until the 1960s at least and it was Arafat who popularized the term. At that point in time of the abandonment, all inhabitants of the Mandate territory were Palestinians, including the Jews and actually Palestinian was used more by Jews (in international forums and names of organizations, also in the Olympics, etc). Why is it not mentioned in the lead that this is located within Israel, it’s legal status is not under dispute, yet the lead does not mention it is located in Israel and the infobox used is for a country that it is not located in and that does not have jurisdiction over the area. Regarding that quote, I added references for it including this passage from the Jerusalem Post in 2021, which you see will support the text you quoted:

The abandoned Arab village has been identified with the biblical Nephtoah and its spring is mentioned in the Book of Joshua as delineating the northern border of the tribe of Judah: “The outcome of the lottery for the tribe of the Children of Judah.... The border proceeded directly from the top of the mountain to the spring of Mei Neftoach and broadened to the cities of Mount Ephron.” (Joshua 15:9). Ruins have been found here dating to the First Temple period. While inhabited in the Roman, Byzantine and Crusader periods, the extensive remains visible today mostly date from the late Ottoman and Mandate times. They include several olive oil presses, a mosque and maqam (Islamic shrine) honoring Seif ad-Din – one of the mujahadeen who fought with Saladin. The scores of stone buildings scattered across the steeply sloping site feature groin vaults, a vernacular echo of Jerusalem’s Crusader architecture that allows roofs to be erected without timber rafters. The center of the ruined village was the spring, today landscaped as a popular swimming hole turned mikve. During the British Mandate, agricultural Lifta prospered as Jerusalem grew. Some villagers sold land to Jews that became the neighborhood of Romema. A primary school was built – which after 1948 became the Nachshon School, and today is the Talmud Torah Mishkan Betzalel. The strategic village became a battleground following the United Nations’ November 29, 1947 vote to partition Palestine. Villagers took up arms to ambush armored convoys snaking up the narrow road from Tel Aviv. After repeated defeats involving the loss of life and materiel, the Hagana changed strategy and began conquering the Arab villages in order to drive off the guerillas. The 2,548 Liftawis began abandoning their village but each family posted an armed guard to protect their property. They too fled after the massacre at nearby village Deir Yassin, today the site of Herzog Hospital, on April 9, 1948.[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yallayallaletsgo (talk • contribs) 04:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Boutique Hotel". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 16 July 2021.
I am not an Israeli or Palestinian citizen, so by your own definition I am neutral. Kindly do not discuss personal disputes on article talk pages. The lead says it was a Palestinian Arab village, not just a Palestinian village as you say above. Your out there ideas on when people started calling themselves Palestinian is a typical propaganda talking point, but it is based on literally nothing. Nobody called this place Mei Neftoach, and your edits expunging the word Lifta and replacing it with "the village" or "Mei Neftoach" betrayed the POV that you claim not to have. Finally, news articles like a Jerusalem Post article you quote, are very poor sources for history. Actual historians document the Lehi entering the village and blowing up several houses and the residents fleeing. The infobox uses a map of Mandatory Palestine because that is where this village was. You are mistaken on both what the article says and what the sources say. The common name of this village is Lifta. The name we use will be Lifta. The best sources say Lifta was depopulated following a military assault by Jewish forces. We include the disputed claim that Lifta is the same as Mei Neftoach, but that again is not an undisputed fact, despite your attempt to claim in this article it is. That you think your edits are "neutral" and mine not is cute, but not really a concern of mine. There is a very clear consensus here against your edits. Kindly do not reinstate them. Edit-warring against a consensus may result in sanctions. nableezy - 15:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Selfstudier: what Yallayallaletsgo added is/was non-NPOV nonsense. (also; I am not Palestinian, or Arab, or Jew, so I am neutral in this (apparently!)), Huldra (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But fine, since you want to apparently have me document all the ways your supposedly neutral self slanted this article, here you go:

You wrote:

Immediately prior to the independence of the Jewish state, Mei Neftoach was known by its inhabitants as Lifta, and was mostly populated by Arabs. The village was abandoned after the local Arab residents took up arms against their Jewish neighbors and the nascent State of Israel, during the early part of the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine.

No, Lifta was known as Lifta going back to at least 1800 and likely much earlier than that. And regarding the specious abandoned after the Arab residents took up arms against their "neighbors", according to Walid Khalidi in All That Remains, what actually happened was

The fighting in Lifta, as well as the adjacent Jerusalem districts of Rumayma and Shaykh Badr, was triggered by the Haganah in the earliest days of war. ... According to Israeli historian Benny Morris, the Haganah fired the first shots in December 1947, killing the Palestinian owner of a filling station in Rumayna, on the grounds that he was suspected of informing Arab forces about the departure of Jewish convoys to Tel Aviv. The next day, a grenade was thrown at a Jewish bus. Palestinian historian Arif al-Arif adds that a coffeehouse in Lifta was attacked on 28 December with Sten guns and submachine-guns, and that six of the patrons were killed and seven wounded. The New York Times account puts the number of dead at five, adding that members of the Stern Gang halted their bus outside the cafe, sprayed the patrons with machine-gun fire and threw grenades.

Al-Arif writes that most of the residents of Lifta left after the attack on the coffeehouse and the rest evacuated soon after. These actions were followed by a number of others, with the Haganah, IZL, and Stern Gang repeatedly raiding both Rumayma and Lifta.

Next, you write of a first temple period as though it were established fact that Lifta in fact sits on the grounds of Neftoach, whereas that is not an undisputed fact. See the discussion at #Should_we_have_"it_is_located_on_the_spot_of_the_Tanachic_village_"Nephtoah""_...in_the_lead? for why that is not the case.
Next, starting with the Ottoman era, you continue with the disputed claim that Lifta is Mei Neftoach, writing that it Mei Neftoach was merely known as Lifta during this one period. And then you proceeded to replace every instance of Lifta with "Mei Neftoach" or "the village". Among the changes from Lifta is In 2010, an archaeological survey was conducted at Mei Neftoach by Mordechai Heiman on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) with the source actually using Lifta (a cut off, but very much not Mei Neftoach). That is a fairly blatant example of falsifying a source in order to push a POV.
Finally, you removed all of the external links about the village and its Palestinian history, leaving only the nature reserve link.

But for some reason, you think your edits are "neutral" and mine display a "pro-Palestinian basis". Honestly, the changes of Lifta to Mei Neftoach are so tendentious that had you had an up to date discretionary sanctions alert I may well have reported it. If you repeat such tendentious edits again, now that you have said notice, I will report it. nableezy - 22:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Yallayallaletsgo Re your "Immediately prior to the independence of the Jewish state, Mei Neftoach was known by its inhabitants as Lifta, and was mostly populated by Arabs." This place was called Lifta in the 1596 tax-records by the Ottomans, and it was all populated by Muslim and Christian Palestinian Arabs, at least according to the Village Statistics, 1945. You should really be topic banned for making up such a story. Huldra (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit proposal to update the status of Lifta

I only have 320 edits, and a minimum of 500 edits are required to update the Lifta page. I wanted to propose an edit to update the status of Lifta on the Wikipedia page based on this article from 16 August 2022: "Plan shelved to turn historic Arab village at Jerusalem entrance into luxury housing" Obversa (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the update after reaching the minimum of 500 edits threshold. Obversa (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lifta