• (Support) So, maybe we merge the Yavne and Yibna pages?--Sreifa (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – That would be desirable IMO, but extremely difficult—both in the technical sense, and also in gaining consensus. You should place merge tags on the articles and we'll see what comes out of it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see if I can pull this off... To be clear: I intend to preserve all information, templates, lists, etc. --Sreifa (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose a merger given that Yavne is a new locality with a relatively recent history, unrelated to Yibna, except for the fact that it was constructed on its ruins. Conflating the two by creating one article woud mislead the reader into thinking that Yibna's history was Yavne's which is simply untrue. Reliable sources treat the two places separately, and so should we. Tiamut^talk 10:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yavne is both a new and old (even ancient) locality. Arabic "Yibna" comes from the older name. Parts of the pre-1948 town are now incorporated in the new town, and the tel is part of the Yavne municipality. It's one place with a long history. For accuracy we can explain that the new town expanded westward, probably because of the Antiquities law. Both pages claim the Biblical-Crusader history as their own. --Sreifa (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No reason to merge. Yavne was a Jewish town during the roman and bizantine periods, and again after 1948. Yibna was an arab village from the 9th century till 1948. Out of that I agree with Tiamut Ori (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merger of this and other similar article pairs. Places being depopulated and later repopulated on/near the old site is a common thing throughout history, and are generally treated as the same place no matter who repopulated it (see for example Jericho). The history of this human settlement should go into one article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merger. New names and new governing entities have been the story of civilization since day one. No other area of Wikipedia grants separate articles for each ethnicity, race, etc. that inhabited one region. The entire history is treated comprehensively in one article. Unless there is a good reason Israel should be treated differently, we should have one article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Tiamat. See also Deir Yassin and Har Nof, which are separate articles despite land in the former being repopulated, and classed as part of, the latter. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 07:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Brewcrewer, see Byzantium-Constantinople-Istanbul. FunkMonk (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Yibna had an article the size of Constantinople, you'd have a point. Byzantium and Constantinople would naturally be spun off into their own articles due to size. Yibna is a few small paragraphs long. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per what exactly? What's the precedent/policy for small articles about former locations having to be merged? And by the way, does this mean you would agree on having two articles if the were both long enough? FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense? It is not a former location. There may have been a population shift, but there was continuous settlement. We do not have Jewish East End and Bangladeshi East End. Just East End. Chesdovi (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UserFunkMonk has not looked closely. the Main article is Istanbul. the article on Constantinople begins with a explanation that immediately redirects you to Istanbul for the period after the Ottoman conquest. Yibne was an village of no particular significance, and User:FunkMonk is proposing that we give it a more separate status than we give to Constantinople, the capitol of the Roman Empire? Say what?AMuseo (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Tiamut and FunMonk. Also see Antakya and Antioch. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Cannot agree with Tiamut on the assertion that "Yavne is a new locality with a relatively recent history, unrelated to Yibna, except for the fact that it was constructed on its ruins." Population may wax and wane, but as long as the locatity of a populated place remains within the same area, the history of that place should all be on one page. The example that FunkMonk brings (Byzantium-Constantinople-Istanbul) is also not valid, as if there is a plethora of material, then it has to be siphoned off; see: London, Roman London, Anglo-Saxon London, Norman and Medieval London, Tudor London, Stuart London, 18th century London, 19th century London, History of London 1900–1939, London in World War II. Yibne will merge nicly with the history section of Yavne, as with Tiberias, Safed and all other towns located in Palestine which were subsequently inhabitied by different people. Per Andrensaths rational: Har Nof and Deir Yassin (now the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center) are "neighbourhoods", sub-districts, of a larger town, which is acceptable, (e.g. Fustat even though it has been incorporated into Old Cairo.) If however, Deir Yassin was an isolated village that was renamed Har Nof and remained isolated, there would be one page. Another example would be Eliad, Golan Heights. Although it was built "nearby" (in fact, very nearby) Al ‘Al, it nevertheless remains separate. If however, the inhabitants expanded into the area of Al ‘Al and inhabited the former houses, there would be a case for merging. If the town grew so drastically that there became a number of neighbourhoods and Al ‘Al remained a distinct and recogniseable area, it would remain separate. That is why Yibne is different. (Actually, how many neigbourhoods are there in Yavne? And has the Old Town remained distinct?) Chesdovi (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, though they should probably be mentioned in the article, and given articles of their own, a la Miramar, New Zealand, if they meet the GNG (as there isn't a subject-specific guideline for places, AFAICT). Unfortunately I don't know Hebrew, and don't trust Google Translate to be good enough for this, so hopefully some editor who does know it can check the city's website. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of ancient Yavne and Yibna was on a tel at the eastern limits of the modern town. (sorry- that was me yesterday, interuppted) --Sreifa (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of Yibna now? Is it inhabited? Do the original houses remain intact? What is the area know to as by locals? Chesdovi (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the old houses have been populated, at the foot of the tel. The Sanhedrin park (also at the foot of the tel) has been developed. The tel itself has not been resettled (I mentioned the Antiquities law above), but the Minaret of the Mamluke mosque has been restored and preserved. --Sreifa (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the area known by a name? What is that neighbourhood called? Chesdovi (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, urgent need of NPOV. A combined article is better for context. JFW | T@lk 11:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the town of Yibna is a topic of its own with a history going back centuries and abruptly ending when depopulated by Israeli forces. A new town was established on the site of the old town. They are emphatically not the same town and sources treat Yibna as its own topic. A line saying that this town was built on the land of the depopulated Palestinian village of Yibna here and a line in the Yibna article saying that this village was established on the site of Yibna in that article is all that is needed. These form two separate topics that sources by and large treat separately. nableezy - 19:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because "Yavneh" is much more than just a geographic location in Judaism, the Talmudic expression of "Yavneh and it's sages" has universal significance as a religious symbol of the key to Judaism's survival by dint of the great Torah and Talmudic scholarship that was based in Yavneh during Roman times and that was saved from destruction. Will there be a push to re-name Bnai Brak to an Arab-sounding name next? IZAK (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're sayng that it's OK for old Yavne and new Yavne to be on the same page, but Yibna, that was the same town, can't be there? --Sreifa (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bnei Brak is situated 2 miles away from the Arab village of Ibn Ibraq. Chesdovi (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Um, I don't think anybody here is arguing that we should rename Bnai Brak? (If they are, then they shouldn't be, per WP:FORUM and this not being Talk:Bnai Brak.) --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 10:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the expression "Yavneh and its sages" does not have universal significance, as there are several billion humans who don't subscribe to the tenets of Judaism, and any extraterrestial sapients won't have heard of Judaism anyway. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 10:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose These articles address different aspects from different angels, as can be seen from the different templates and categories used on them. Merging them would be an unfortunate precedent. Debresser (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But different aspects and angles should be contained in one article if the subject matter is about the same thing. Chesdovi (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not about the same thing, they're about two different settlements. In fact, instead of merging Yibna into this article or vice-versa, we should probably be splitting out pre-Muslim Yavne to its own article. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 10:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artices about different settlements of people in the same place are not split into several article unless the amount of material is too much for a single article, as I have shown with History of London. Chesdovi (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Other than being in roughly the same areas, these settlements are entirely unrelated, both culturally, chronologically and religiously. Merging them would approximate merging Native Americans into the United states. Odedee (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Native Americans relates to a people. Chesdovi (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which is the reason I wrote "approximate". Odedee (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fact, almost all pages about American cities built on land formerly settled by Amerindians (even if these are only known form archaeology) include or begin with information about the Amerindians.AMuseo (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I suggest that we handle this the way Wikipedia handle similar cities in the rest of the world. With an article under the contemporary name of the city that covers all eras of human settlement from pre-history forward. If there is an historical period so notable that it merits a subsidiary article. It gets a short discussion and a link. See, for example Strasbourg which has a section on Roman Argentoratum with a link. Why should Yavna/Yibna be differnet form all other cities?AMuseo (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples We do not need to reinvent the wheel. See the single article model as carried out in the pages for Mexico City, Damascus, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Cusco, New Delhi, Colchester or Mumbai. I could go on. The world is filled with citeis that have changed hands. It is up to those opposing a merge to explain why Yavna/Yibna should be two articles when other cities that have passed from the control of one nation or civilization to another are handled in a unified article under the name used by the present governing group.AMuseo (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The example you give undercuts your argument. Yes, a section on what happened to Argentoratum and a link to a main article on Argentoratum is in the Strasbourg. But, as you yourself pointed out, there is an article for Argentoratum. But there should still be a main article on Yibna. This is not simply a city that "changed hands", Yibna was a city depopulated of its residents in 1948. A new town was established on the site of Yibna in 1949, they arent the same town. What happened before 1948 should be covered here, but unless the people voting for a merge are willing to include all of the information from Yibna in this article that is all that is needed. If these same people are not willing to include all of the information on the Yibna page then it should be summarized here and fully covered there. nableezy - 18:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should merge the information found on Yibna into Yavne. That is what merge means.AMuseo (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bolded a specific word. What I see happening in my crystal ball, if the all the material is merged it will shortly be cut down to less than a paragraph as being "undue weight". Call me cynical, but I dont think many of the people pushing for a merge want to fully cover the expulsion of the Palestinians from Yibna. nableezy - 19:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that continuity of the settlement is a POV. While it is a fact that the Arab/Muslim/Palestinian population did not continue to live in the town, the Jewish population that resettled the town see themselves as descendants of one of the previous populaces. --Sreifa (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a cynic, but the expulsion of the Palestinians from Yibna isn't really covered in that article now. Anyway, relevant information should go into the merged article, including what happened in 1948. I'm more concerned that right now most of the article looks like collection of tidbits of information of the type people like to put into articles about Palestinian villages in order to beef them up (like 3 different people saying it's a village on a hill with residents who work in agriculture), rather than a coherent narrative, but I'm sure that can be fixed to everyone's satisfaction. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand you folks were looking for an informal mediator at the Cabal page, in order to get a neutral opinion on the discussion here. I've taken up the request.

I've reviewed the discussion above, and I've had a look at the examples from both sides. I can see that both arguments have merit.

It seems to me that there's some consensus that one important question in making this decision is: Does Yavne have any continuity with Yibna, or is it a totally new settlement that merely happens to be on the same site as Yibna?

Now, it looks like most of the folks who'd like to merge the articles think that there is continuity of culture between these two places, and they've cited a number of other articles that roll up multiple place-names and multiple resettlements on the same ground into one unitary article.

It also looks like the folks who would prefer that the articles remain separate generally say that there isn't any continuity. If I understand correctly, the area was forcibly depopulated and then repopulated a little while later.

I honestly haven't formed a strong opinion yet; I've still got some questions. I'd like to hear everyone's input on them.

First, neither article actually says what happened to cause the discontinuity. I gather the town was depopulated, but neither article seems to explicitly say that, never mind provide context and explanation. So: Is there a reason this isn't in the articles? Is there a source for what happened? Regardless of whether or not the articles are merged, it seems like this is an important part of the area's history, and it feels weird that it's not even mentioned in the articles. I gather it was done as an act of man, so it seems like the motivations for the depopulation could be relevant.

In general, the Israeli war of independence (AKA the Naqba, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war) happened. Whatever your decision, you should understand that it might have an effect in the wider context. Throughout what is known today as Israel, many Arab towns were "depopulated" when the Jews established a state. I think the term "depopulated" is too general, but I gather that it the the term used in WP, for lack of another term of consensus. Historical sources vary from saying that the towns were abandoned from fear of what the Jews would do, to saying that the Jews actively drove out the residents. In the case of Yavne/Yibna, the (Yibna) page says that the residents were expelled. --Sreifa (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I understand that the city was depopulated. Was it also destroyed? That is, when the new population arrived, did it find any infrastructure—roads, buildings, wells, what have you—still standing and potentially reusable? Or did they have to create the city anew, literally from the ground up?

I see that in the case of Deir Yassin and Har Nof, the former was essentially levelled by mortar fire during the attack, so neither the people nor the infrastructure remained part of the new settlement. Likewise Antioch was destroyed by earthquakes and abandoned, and later Antakya was built on the same site. Mexico City was offered in support of merger, but that article links to the separate article Tenochtitlan to discuss its own ancient history; the dividing point there is the city's destruction and depopulation at the hands of the Spaniards. New Delhi was offered as a "single page" precedent; in actuality, there are so many separate pages for former cities on that site that there is a page to sort them out. Byzantium-Constantinople-Istanbul, on the other hand, was one city and population that experienced political changes, but did not have substantial changes in population or infrastructure as the name changed. That's also true of New Amsterdam and New York, and of Bombay/Mumbai. Likewise, Damascus is called out as being the oldest continuously-populated city in the world. While Santa Fe is a unified page, its preceding settlement really wasn't as historically notable as the other cities discussed here, at least not in the Wikipedia sense of "notable", so I'm not sure it's a good example. Cusco was another single page suggestion; it doesn't seem that city's name ever changed, at least in the period of time we're aware of it having a name. Strasbourg and Argentoratum don't seem to have enough historical data to say what happened at the time the name changed.

I look forward to hearing everyone's opinions, and I hope these questions will serve to focus discusssion. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no black or white to help you here. Parts of the town were destroyed, others are lived in or occupied (houses, and also other landmarks) to this day. My main problem with having two pages (and this applies to many, many places in Israel) is that history goes back farther than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it is usually quoted (sometimes with different emphases) on both pages, complicating things, but understandably. Jews see themselves as returning from exile, while Palestinians see themselves as the 'natives' of the last millennium (until 1948). Also - the parts that are settled today have been expanded from the parts that were first 'depopulated'/settled in 1948, in an ongoing, natural process. --Sreifa (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a lot of ongoing discussion at this point, and it seems to me that there's not a consensus for merger here. After reviewing everyone's statements and the articles of cities that are similar cases, my personal opinion is that there isn't quite enough evidence to justify a merger in this case.

To me, it boils down to this: what makes a city a city? I think it's the intersection of two things: the people and the infrastructure. It takes both to make a city. If a city is destroyed, but its residents rebuild it, it may no longer have the same buildings but it is still the same city. If the buildings are abandoned but substantially intact, so that the architectural and cultural character remains, and new residents come in and preserve that character, it's still the same city. However, if you remove the people and destroy most of the buildings, you destroy the city. A discontinuity of culture is created, and the next settlement creates a new city. In borderline cases, I think it's important not to get too hung up on absolutes regarding people or buildings; the important thing is that continuous thread of culture that links the old and new. This is the pattern you can see in the articles cited by both sides as examples.

In this case, it seems reasonably clear that Yavne and Yibna don't share much of a culture. In fact, it seems like the difference in culture is at the heart of the conflict. On that grounds, I would say that there's justification for two separate pages. The people are different, and it sounds like a fair proportion of the infrastructure is different, and it seems hard to doubt that the culture is vastly different.

Regarding the history of the area: Based on similar articles, I would think that the bulk of the historical information for the area should go on Yibna's page, as that was its name up until 1948, and that, of course, that history should be NPOV. I realize that this is a highly partisan issue, and that it would be difficult to achieve NPOV—and that many may dislike my particular point of view—but I think that this would be best in keeping with Wikipedia's ideals. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]