Talk:Kafr Saba

Palestine Mid‑importance

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

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

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

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

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

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

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

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

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

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

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[History of Palestine#Ottoman Period 1517-1917|Ottoman period]] The anchor (#Ottoman Period 1517-1917) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Proposed merge to Kfar Saba

This and the Kfar Saba article cover the same area and should be combined into a single article reflecting its past and present history. Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, actually Kfar Saba was established in 1898 and is located further north of Kafr Saba. Plus, the lands of the former Arab village is currently covered by three or four other Israeli towns not just Kfar Saba. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only second Al Ameer son here: they are two different communities, on partially overlapping land. I´m going to be bold and remove the merge-template. Huldra (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

This: [1] removal is done with the edit-line: "The cited source does not mention the shrine on the given page". However, this totally miss the point. Benvenisti *first* makes the general observation (in a sub-chapter introduction), on p. 273, about the "wholesale appropriation of the sacred sites of a defeated religious community" ...*then* he goes on to describe several such examples. Like Al-Nabi Rubin, Ramla (p274-276), Nabi Judah (p. 276), Nabi Dan, (p 277) ...and "Nabi Benjamin", ie. Kafr Saba (p. 276, 277). Regards, Huldra (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tira

I've read the source, and you are mistaken. The Tira you have linked to is a village just south of Haifa, which was captured by Israeli forces in July 1948 (Morris, p.209), after all its non-combat population had been orderly evacuated by the British. The Tira referred to in this context is the one I linked to - a village just north of Kafr Saba, which was not captured by Israeli forces during the war at all - per Morris on the page you give. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see now that the Tira-villages were mixed up; I will change it at once. Thank you for spotting the mistake! Huldra (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Arab village?

The lead reads, "Kafr Saba (Arabic: كفر سابا‎) was a Palestinian Arab village famous for its shrine and a history stretching back for more than a millennium." Considering that the Palestinian Arab identity has only existed since not before the 1930s (see Palestinian Identity by Rashid Khalidi), it seems anachronistic to describe a millennium-old village as "Palestinian." An "Arab" village, perhaps, but certainly not a "Palestinian" village. Furthermore, the shrine was not built by Palestinian Arabs. Rather, it was built in the Mamluk period by Arabs who would not have identified themselves as "Palestinian." --GHcool (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time it was depopulated the people living there were Palestinian Arabs. This is something I have run into more than a few times and this continued effort to remove the words Palestine and Palestinian from Wikipedia is becoming more than slightly annoying. nableezy - 22:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is actually just as annoying is the attempt to use an anachronistic term ("Palestinians") to describe people who did not identify that way at the time, except of course when those people are involved in some unpleasantness, at which point they are quickly described as 'Arab', and attempts to use the anachronistic term are quickly edit-warred out of the article ([2], [3]) by the same editors who elsewhere are insisting on the usage of the anachronism. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

according to GHcool the events of that page fall before the existence of a "Palestinian Arab identity". And funny you should use those edits as an example, seeing as the user who made the original change also wanted to put Palestinian people up for deletion while starting a section Palestinian people don't exist on the talk page. Think you proved my point better than I did. nableezy - 23:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss my point, and perhaps GHCool's. If you agree with his position, then the Hebron massacre article should stay as is, but then this article needs to change. If you disagree with GHCool, then do you agree that the perpetrators of the 1929 Hebron massacre should be described as 'Palestinian Arabs'? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not miss your point, you ignored mine. Were the people who were expelled from the village (from 48 to 50, well after the advent of a "Palestinian Arab identity" according to GHcool) Palestinian Arabs? If so then why would we not say this was a Palestinian Arab village? nableezy - 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not GHCool, and don't necessarily agree with your/his view that a "Palestinian Arab identity" was established in 1948. I haven't objected to the description of the village as "Palestinian Arab", though, so long as we avoid giving the impression that it was such a village for a millennium, as the original version does.

You, however, seem to believe that such an identity was well established well before 1948, so I wonder why you would object to describing the perpetrators of the Hebron massacre as 'Palestinian Arabs'. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have acquired magical powers I would appreciate you not commenting on what I seem to think. nableezy - 00:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never wanted to delete the Palestinian people article. My views on Palestinian peoplehood may be read here, but that's not the point. The point is exactly what LoverOfTheRussianQueen is saying; the Palestinian people (however one defines the term) have not been in existence for roughly 90% of Kafr Saba's history. Describing Kafr Saba "a Palestinian village" in the first sentence of the article is like describing the Colosseum "an Italian tourist attraction" in the first sentence of that article.

Also, I don't wish to discuss the Hebron massacre or anything else related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has virtually no bearing on the millenium-long character of the city of Kafr Saba. --GHcool (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, wasnt talking about you, was talking about the user reverted in the diffs LoverOfTheRussianQueen provided. Agreed on not discussing other things here.
Now as to your point, how would you feel about "Kafr Saba (Arabic: كفر سابا‎) was a village famous for its shrine and a history stretching back for more than a millennium that was depopulated of its Palestinian Arab residents during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War"? I would rather keep it as it is, but what is your opinion of that as an opening sentence? nableezy - 00:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good start, but consider this: "Kafr Saba (Arabic: كفر سابا‎) was a village famous for its shrine dating to the Mamluk period and a history stretching back for more than a millennium. The was depopulated of its Arab residents during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." --GHcool (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I go back to the residents who were depopulated were Palestinians. Why do you not want to use Arab instead of Palestinian? nableezy - 01:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to use "Arab" instead of "Palestinian." --GHcool (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I asked my question backwards, why would you want to use Arab instead of Palestinian? Were not the people expelled Palestinians (1948-1950)? nableezy - 18:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism?

Could one of you please outline the argument that "Palestinian Arab" is an anachronism, and explain when its use would not be anachronistic, in your view? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus in scholarly literature is that a national "Palestinian" identity, which is independent from a generic "Arab" identity or from a Levantine or Syrian one is a recent - 20th century - phenomenon. There is a difference of opinion on whether such an independent identity can be see as early as WWI, or if it only crystallized in the 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s - but no serious scholarship contends that such an identity existed for a millennium. In my view, "Palestinian", as a reference to the Arab population of Palestine would not be anachronistic only from 1964 on (the formation of the PLO), but I would not object to references to "Palestinian Arab" in articles about events from 1900 onwards. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that Arabs who lived in Palestine in, say, 1850 were not "Palestinian Arabs"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that referring to the Arabs who lived in Palestine in 1850 as "Palestinian Arabs" is anachronistic usage, which implies a national identity which did not exist then, and scholarly literature agrees. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you refer me to some of the scholarly literature, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Identity by Rashid Khalidi is probably the most well known source on the subject. --GHcool (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoveroftheRussianQueen said his position represents "consensus in scholarly literature," so I'd appreciate a few of the names of scholars who make up this consensus. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't mind that we replace Palestinian, Egyptian, Syrian, etc. with "Arab" on every locality article, this is not how things work here. To say Kafr Saba was just an Arab village is too general, Palestinian is more specific. Many, if not most, of the localities in Palestine/Israel are hundreds or thousands of years old. That's wonderful, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call them Palestinian or Israeli towns because the use of those terms haven't always been used. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As I wrote above, describing Kafr Saba "a Palestinian village" in the first sentence of the article is like describing the Colosseum "an Italian tourist attraction" in the first sentence of that article. --GHcool (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Arab has more than the single meaning, it also means Arab in Mandatory Palestine (and earlier), sort of how Palestinian Jew means a Jew in Mandatory Palestine (and earlier). This was an Arab village in Mandatory Palestine, it was a Palestinian Arab village. Also, GHcool, you havent answered my question. At the time the village was depopulated, were the residents who were expelled Palestinians? nableezy - 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) to Ghcool: But the same applies to calling cities "Israeli," which by your argument might imply they have been Israeli for thousands of years. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer point by point:

I suggest dropping the "it also means Arab in Mandatory Palestine" argument. It simply isn't going to be helpful. We all know what is meant by the term "Palestinian" (especially when it is linked to the article on Palestinian people). To argue that the term isn't referring to the "Palestinian people" by the 2009 understanding of the term is disingenuous. No serious scholar uses the term "Palestinian" to describe the Arabs of the region in the pre-1948 period.
On the other hand, I have no problem saying that it was "an Arab village" or even that it was located Palestine ("Mandatory Palestine" is a bit too recent for a millennium-old village).
Whether the 1948 residents of Kafr Saba were "Palestinians" or not (by the 2009 understanding of the term) is debatable. Khalidi argues somewhat convincingly that the Palestinian identity developed in the 1930s. Personally, I'm in agreement with the scholars who argue that the Palestinian identity developed at least after 1948 and perhaps even in the 1960s. Khalidi would probably say that the 1948 residents were Palestinians, but many other scholars would say that they were simply Arabs (or perhaps "Palestinian Arabs").
I do not wish to talk about Israeli cities. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, to respond to your point, I know of no millennium-old villages in Israel that describe itself as "Israeli villages." I ask that in the future, we all refrain from false analogies and other logical fallacies. --GHcool (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone publish the names of the scholars who make up this consensus, please? And if they do not call the pre-1900 (or whenever) Arab natives of Palestine "Palestinian-Arabs," what do they call them? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work, so I don't have my library in front of me. Again, Rashid Khalidi is probably the best source I know about the development of the Palestinian identity (I do not own his book and do not remember how he referred to the Arabs who later called themselves Palestinians). The Wikipedia section on the subject pretty much gets the history right. I'd suggest looking at the scholars cited in that section. --GHcool (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars

Just looking at two of the books I have on my desk, the term Palestinian Arab is used pre-1900 by historians:

Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians, p. 6: "Abundant references to the Palestinian population in early Zionist texts show clearly that from the beginning of the Zionist settlement in Palestine—which Zionist historiography dates to ... 1882—the Palestinian Arabs were far from being 'unseen' ..."

Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, p. 6. Of the late 19th century in Palestine, he writes, "the a'yan emerged as the Palestinian Arabs' local and eventually 'national' leadership."

Perhaps what people are getting confused with is the rise of a Palestinian nationalist movement. But the absence, pre-1900, of an explictly nationalist movement doesn't mean they weren't Palestinian Arabs i.e. Arabs living in Palestine, just as there were Palestinian Jews i.e. Jews living in Palestine. We can't censor common sense terms on Wikipedia just because they don't suit the ideology of certain small groups. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what you are suggesting is, as GHCool points out, rather disingenuous - you are using a a term which means one thing today, to describe something it did not refer to in 1948. In an abstract grammatical sense, "Palestinian Arab" may be the equivalent of 'An Arab residing in the territory of Palestine' - but in context, especially this context (the 1948 war), they are not equivalent. We have what I believe is an acceptable compromise in the article - the people are described as being "Palestinian-Arab" - there's no reason to introduce improper implications using anachronistic terminology. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I am doing is quoting historians. We don't use terms now the way they were used 200 years ago. We use them now as they are used now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're doing a bit more than that, but as consensus is against your POV here, I don't fell like getting into an inane semantic war with you. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure consensus is against her point of view? How do you figure it is her POV? SV is hardly known as a pro-P editor, but something tells me a prior incarnation of you is well aware of that. nableezy - 22:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GHCool, Davshul and myself oppose her POV, and you seemed to be ok with the compromise achieved yesterday, so by my calculations that's 4:1. As far as I can tell, SV has been very actively pursuing a pro-Palestinian agenda, here, as well as here, here, and here - and that's just from this month. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont oppose her POV here, well maybe as I have no idea what she really thinks, but as to what she has written on this page I do not oppose it. I am willing to compromise and have it say Palestinian Arabs depopulated from an Arab village, though Davshul and GHcool seem to oppose that idea. nableezy - 00:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose that either (that is what I referred to as "the compromise achieved yesterday"), and I think GHCool is ok with it, too, since he did not change it after we agreed to it yesterday. SV seems to be the only one insisting on the "Palestinian-Arab Village" version, with "Palestinian" wikilinked to Palestinian people. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) To Lover: See above. Quotes from two well-known historians, one Arab, one Israeli, so obviously it isn't true that there's a strong scholarly consensus against using the term to discuss pre-1900. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is a strong scholarly consensus that a Palestinian national identity is a 20th C. phenomenon, which is what I wrote. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

here's another suggestion. Since you seem to be saying that you are implying nothing more than "Arabs living in Palestine" when you say 'Palestinian Arab', I'd be ok with changing the line that currently reads "Kafr Saba (Arabic: كفر سابا‎) was an Arab village famous for its shrine..." to "Kafr Saba (Arabic: كفر سابا‎) was an Arab village in the British Mandate of Palestine, famous for its shrine ...". This contains the same geographical information, without the misleading and POV implication involved with calling it a 'Palestinian' village. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the present language of the second sentence of this article to be the proverbial “camel” produced by the committee entrusted to design a horse. Prior to the declaration of the State of Israel, even one day as in the case in question, the inhabitants of the Mandate, be they Jew or Arab, were both Palestinians. Accordingly if “(t)he village was depopulated of its Palestinian-Arab residents”, the correct phrase would by “Palestinian Jews” (rather than using the term “Jewish community in Palestine”). It would also logically follow that, if the correct terminology throughout Wikipedia for an Arab inhabitant of the Mandate of Palestine is “Palestinian Arab” (rather than simply using the term “Arab”, even where the context makes it clear, as in this case, that the Arabs in question were inhabitants of the Mandate), one should also use the terms Palestinian Jew throughout Wikipedia, rather than simply Jew, when referring to a Jewish inhabitant of the Mandate. To adopt such a policy is clearly nonsense. In the sentence in question, the only difference, from a national perspective, between the so-called “depopulated” inhabitants and the inhabitants that replaced them is that the former were Arabs and the latter Jewish. The use of the additional description “Palestinian” appears merely to serve some higher political end, which has no place in this article in Wikipedia. I strongly recommend that, in this instance, the words “Palestinian-Arab” be replaced with the word “Arab”. Davshul (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the inclusion of the word Palestinian serves "some higher political end" whereas the removal of the term is noble and without any ulterior motivation? Really? That is very interesting. nableezy - 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, Dave, why would it be nonsense to call Jews who lived in Palestine pre-Israel "Palestinian Jews." That's what they were (and some Israelis still call themselves that, by the way). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with either Davshul's or LoverOfTheRussianQueen's suggestions. --GHcool (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to SlimVirgin's comment - I do not consider it nonsense to refer to a Jew who lived in pre-Israel Palestine as a "Palestinian Jew" - indeed that's exactly what he was (and by the same token, an Arab who lived in pre-Israel Palestine was clearly a “Palestinian Arab”). What I consider to be nonsensical would be insistence that in every reference to such a Jew we should preface the word “Jew” with the word “Palestinian”, even when it is obvious from the context that such a Jew was living in Palestine. Each time we one refer to an American Jew or a British Jew one would not repeat the word American or British, unless the context so requires. In the sentence under discussion, it is clear that the Arabs in question were Palestinian Arabs and accordingly what point is possibly served, as regards the understanding of the article, by adding the preface "Palestinian"? Davshul (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As regards nableezy's latest comment, on this occasion I agree with him - "the inclusion of the word Palestinian serves "some higher political end" whereas the removal of the term is noble and without any ulterior motivation" Davshul (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That actually isnt agreeing with me, it is agreeing with a sarcastic statement made by me. And the purpose is that the term Arab is too general and covers too many people, it was specifically Palestinians that were expelled from their homes. nableezy - 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I agree that if the word "Palestinian" were to be repeated at each and every opportunity, there would be something amiss. But the rule on WP, and with writing in general, is to explain your terms on first reference. We should therefore at the earliest opportunity explain that this was a Palestinian-Arab village. There will then be no need to repeat it, unless some confusion would otherwise arise. The problem here is that we're not being allowed to explain it on first reference, so that is the thing that is looking amiss. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been demonstrated that Kafr Saba was not a "Palestinian Arab village," at least not through 90% of the millennium long history of the town. It was an "Arab village in Palestine," not a "Palestinian Arab village." Let's move on from this point. --GHcool (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Palestinian Arab village at the time of its depopulation. This article is about the village that was depopulated and its history and that of the site it is located at. Its fine to describe which present-day people identify with it. French nationalism is an 18th century invention but we don't refrain from calling French villages "French" today when describing a history that goes back further than that.

Palestinian people may not have had a national consciousness prior to the 19th century, but they certainly identify that way today and identify with the history of the places from which they hailed. This is covered briefly in the article on Palestinian people which you referred to above. Village histories are particularly important, even remote history, which often has local legends built around it. Tiamut^talk 20:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A false analogy. We are not talking about nationalism, French or Palestinian. We are talking about a national consciousness/identity. We are talking about people who identify themselves by the name of "Palestinian" or "French." The French national identity/consciousness as we know it today developed in medieval times and has had many twists and turns since then. The Palestinian national identity/consciousness developed in the 20th century. The period being discussed in the Kafr Saba article takes place just as the Palestinian national consciousness is crystallizing. To call Kafr Saba a "Palestinian village" is an anachronism for the same reason that calling Neustria a "French kingdom" is an anachronism. --GHcool (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had not had an opportunity earlier to view nableezy's somewhat telling, most recent comment. Two points emerge from this brief comment. He states “that the term Arab is too general and covers too many people”. What other sort of Arab could possible be affected by the depopulation of an Arab village in Palestine – Egyptian Arabs, Moroccan Arabs??? Secondly he adds “it was specifically Palestinians that were expelled”. This is just the point where we differ. Whatever expulsions took place in Kafr Saba were not “specifically Palestinian”, they were specifically Arab. The alleged perpetrators of the expulsions were themselves also Palestinians (namely Palestinian Jews) and this is why the word “Palestinian” really has no place in the context of this sentence. However, I agree with GHcool, the time has come to move on, as there appears to be little further to be gained by debating the issue, at least in the context of this article. Davshul (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, it was Palestinian Arabs that were specifically expelled. nableezy - 14:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some equivocating going on between "Palestinian" as meaning "living in Palestine", and Palestinian as meaning "part of the Palestinian People". You are certainly correct that using the first meaning, it was Palestinian Arabs (i.e: Arabs living in Palestine) that were specifically expelled, by Palestinian Jews. It is a matter of considerable dispute if it is also true of the second meaning. The editors pushing for the 'Palestinian-Arab' formulation seem to be equivocating - saying, as SV does above (9:58, 11 August 2), that all they mean is the 1st - Arabs living in Palestine, but then they go and wikilink to the 2nd meaning - Palestinian People. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way the link should be to that article. The Arabs living in the region of Palestine are now known as Palestinians. And even if we use GHcools formulation that they werent always Palestinian because of when a national identity came into being (and there is Arabic literature using the word فلسطيني to identify the Arabs of Palestine in the early 1800s) by the time these people were expelled they were Palestinians, by both meanings of the word. nableezy - 15:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, you are skipping over my point about equivocating: When SV was advocating for "Palestinian Arab", she claimed her intent was nothing more than to denote an "Arab living in Palestine", but in fact , she linked to Palestinian People. To your point - to refer to events and people by the names they are known now, rather than how they were known then is an anachronism that encyclopedias should avoid. To borrow form GHCool's analogy - the people living in Italy today are called Italians, but our article about the sacking of Rome correctly describes a battle between Romans and Gauls. And if we want to avoid anachronisms, it is far from agreed that by the time these people were expelled they were Palestinians, by both meanings of the word- many contend that the national identity is a 50s or 60s phenomena. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool at the beginning of the discussion states that the "national identity" starts to show up in the 30s. And your example of the Romans is, to be blunt, nonsense. At the time of the expulsion of the Palestinians from this village they were known as Palestinians. This didnt happen thousands of years before the idea of a Palestinian national identity. I didnt say it was accepted that the national identity traces that far back, but there are certainly sources that describe the people of the time the village was depopulated as Palestinian Arabs (or just, as is the common usage now, Palestinians). There are sources that describe the village as "Palestinian" ([4]. And I wasnt skipping over your point. The people who were depopulated were "Palestinian Arabs". The article that discusses "Palestinian Arabs" is Palestinian people. There is no conceivable reason why we should not say the people who were depopulated were Palestinian Arabs and no reason why we should not link those words to the article that covers the topic. nableezy - 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GHCool is not the final say on this matter - he is entitled to his opinion, as are those that put the beginning of Palestinian nationalism in the 60s, with the formation of the PLO. The statement "At the time of the expulsion of the Palestinians from this village they were known as Palestinians" is simply false. Contemporary reporting on those events referred to them as Arabs. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool presented a source that he says asserts the national identity came into being in the 30s. As for it being simply false, really? here is one describing it as a Palestinian village. You could also take a look at All that remains: the Palestinian villages occupied and depopulated by Israel in 1948 by Walid Khalidi. There are a ton of sources that describe these people as Palestinians and this village as Palestinian, and to say it is simply false is, well, simply false. nableezy - 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, LoverOfTheRussianQueen is right and Nableezy is twisting my words and the words of the majority of Palestinian scholars. --GHcool (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using a 2007 book by a Palestinian nationalist to prove that in 1948 these people were referred to as "Palestinians" by contemporary sources is an odd argument. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Morris is not a Palestinian nationalist; and, yes, the fact that modern historians refer to "these people" as Palestinian Arabs, and that they do so when describing the period before you say a Palestinian identity first arose, means we can do the same. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book Nabeelzy used as a source is "The Bible and Zionism: invented traditions, archaeology and post-colonialism", by Nur Masalha, a Palestinian nationalist, who calls in the book for the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish state, and replacing it with a bi-national, secular one. It denies the historicity of biblical accounts connecting Jews to the land, calling them "myths" and "invented traditions". Most importantly - it was written in 2007. It is no surprise to see an extremist Palestinian activist using partisan terminology in relation to these events, but to use a description written in 2007 as evidence that these people were described as Palestinians by contemporary sources in 1948 is not an argument that is worthy of a rebuttal - it is self-refuting. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people who were expelled from the village are today called Palestinian people. When people today refer to the people of that time and place they are called Palestinians today. And why would it matter if an author calls for a binational solution? nableezy - 18:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And is there anything wrong with the ynet source? I was under the impression that their editorial board does not favor the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish state, but please correct me if I am wrong. nableezy - 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SV "corrected" my claim that your source is a Palestinian nationalist, mistakenly thinking you were using Morris as a source. I provided some details about the author (including his support for the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish state) just to show his political leanings, so as to avoid future misunderstandings along those lines. I am not arguing your point that today these people are called Palestinians, I am saying they were not called that in 1948, and that using a 2007 book or a modern article in ynet is not support for the claim that they were called that by contemporary sources. I have already voiced my support (as has GHCool) for a compromise version that refers to them as Palestinian-Arabs. Are you (and SV) ok with that compromise, or are you intent on carrying this battlefield mentality until you get your way? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC). [reply]

Lover, you can't discredit historians simply because they don't share your political views, and you don't address that Benny Morris also uses the term "anachronistically," as you would say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not discrediting Masahala, I am pointing out that he is a Palestinian nationalist, and an extreme one at that, and so we should take his terminology with more than a grain of salt. I will repeat the question I've asked of Nableezy: I have already voiced my support (as has GHCool) for a compromise version that refers to them as Palestinian-Arabs. Are you ok with that compromise, or are you intent on carrying this battlefield mentality until you get your way? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources and inserting them into an article is not a battlefield mentality, it is what we are supposed to be doing. I have provided you with 2 sources that say this was a Palestinian village. If you can provide sources disputing that then perhaps a "compromise" is in order, but, as always, sources talk, bs walks. But with the sourcing explicitly calling it a Palestinian village I see no reason why we should not. nableezy - 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking sources that use your favored terms is easily countered by sources that use my favored term - Arab - such as this. I'll take your response as a "no" to the compromise. You should make that explcit in the section Rvapapa has created, below, as the next step will likely be mediation, and it would be good to see exactly where everyone stands. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, LoverOfTheRussianQueen. JPost got the terminology right. Masahla and ynet got it wrong (at least in the opinion of the majority of Palestinian scholars). --GHcool (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a good find, but it does not contradict Palestinian. It only uses a more general word. In the absence of a source that actually contradicts the statement "Kafr Saba was a Palestinian-Arab village" there isn't much for me to respond to. nableezy - 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that it is a "more general word" rather than "a more historically accurate word" is your personal spin. To use your colorful expression, that is bs, which walks. Have a look at this as well, from a well known Palestinian activist. You don't want to compromise, fine, we'll take this to the next step in dispute resolution. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your life. But you have not found a source that contradicts the sentence as it currently stands. nableezy - 19:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)This "prove to me that it isn't" attitude is very irritating and dubious. Just because there is no source out there that "contradicts" the notion that pigs fly doesn't mean that pigs actually do fly. --GHcool (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I provided a scholarly source that says pigs do fly you would need to provide one that says they dont, not just one that says they walk. I provided sources that explicitly refer to the village as Palestinian. I dont know why we are still talking about this when nobody has provided a source that disputes that. And your placing of the dubious tag for something that is well cited is what is irritating. nableezy - 20:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your logical fallacy does not apply. I am not assuming that it is true that the village was Palestinian and asking you to disprove that assumption; I provided sources that say the village was Palestinian. You are not being asked to dispute my own assertions, you are being asked to provide a source that disputes what other sources say. That is what disputes are made of, not just the rationalizations and imaginations of random wikipedia editors. nableezy - 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy seems to have a problem with the concept of plausibility. Given the above statement, it seems that he/she is willing to accept any idiotic statement (even the notion that pigs fly) unless someone specifically contradicts that statement. Source X says pigs fly! Find me Source Y that says pigs don't fly! It is not enough that the evidence against pig flight or Palestinian identity formation prior to the relevant period is overwhelming.

Nableezy seems to insist that we accept his affirmation of the consequent:

(1) All people identifying themselves as Palestinians were Arabs living in Palestine prior to the creation of the State of Israel.
(2) The residents of Kafr Saba were Arabs living in Palestine prior to the creation of the State of Israel.
Therefore, (3) the residents of Kafr Saba identified themselves as Palestinians.

This formal fallacy follows the same logic as the pigs flying counterargument:

(1) All flying creatures are animals.
(2) Pigs are animals.
Therefore, (3) pigs are flying creatures.

I concede that I have never read a source that says unambiguously, "PIGS DO NOT FLY." I also concede that I have never read a source that says unambiguously, "THE RESIDENTS OF KAFR SABA DID NOT IDENTITY THEMSELVES AS PALESTINIANS." I do not think it violates WP:OR to make common sense, chronological inferences and dismiss those claims that follow a more "creative" narrative. --GHcool (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy is sometimes careful with his words, and was careful to put "if a scholarly source says pigs fly" not just any source. Please be more careful when you attempt to deconstruct my arguments, because as it is I provided a scholarly source calling it a Palestinian village, whereas no source has been provided disputing that. nableezy - 21:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More logical fallacies. This time its the classic argument from authority. Claims are verified through a literature of scholarship and evidence, not through cherry picking from one or two sources. The overwhelming literature and evidence do not support the notion that the Palestinian identity applies to most (if any) of the history of Kafr Saba. --GHcool (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These "claims" are verified by scholarly literature. You were presented a scholarly source that says the village is Palestinian and even agreed I read the source correctly. Without a source backing your "claims" that the village was not Palestinian or that the people who were depopulated were not Palestinians you continue to argue. Concede the point and move on or find a source that disputes the one presented. nableezy - 21:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I am having trouble following this argument. Who is unhappy with the way the lead is currently written and how do you want to change it? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The current version is a compromise I can accept. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Me too. --GHcool (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really unacceptable. You're happy for the first sentence to be in silly English so you can make some obscure political point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not silly. Its grammatically correct. SlimVirgin is making some type of straw man or something. --GHcool (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Masalha

Would Nableezy be so kind as to provide us with the relevant passage(s) from Masalha, p. 69, that are cited to verify that the term "Palestinian" is more correct than the term "Arab" in describing the people inhabiting the village of Kafr Saba? I would have checked out the book from the library myself, but, unfortunately, a copy is not available in the Los Angeles Public Library catalog. Thanks in advance. --GHcool (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure

Among the many Judaised Muslim holy places were two sites, Nabi Yamin and Nabi Sama'an, located in the centre of the country, one kilometre east of the Jewish town of Kfar Saba - itself named after a Palestinian village destroyed in 1948.

Apologies for not providing a link before, adding a url to the reference now. nableezy - 18:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with LoverOfTheRussianQueen that Masalha is guilty of fudging the facts a bit by using the term "Palestinian" when "Arab" would have been more in line with the chronology of Palestinian history, I accept that Nableezy interpreted Masalha correctly. --GHcool (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Nur Masalha a reliable "historian" for this dispute? Surely there are other...uhh, less-partisan analysis? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is a reliable source. And the quotes around historian are unnecessary. nableezy - 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is clear what he is saying isn't the consensus or alternative POVs exist. Why Masalha, opposed to others? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd compromise attempt

Since it seems as though we aren't getting very far, I propose another compromise. What say we delete the adjective before the word "village" altogether. The first paragraph of the lead would then look like this: "Kafr Saba (Arabic: كفر سابا‎) was a village famous for its shrine dating to the Mamluk period and for a history stretching back for more than a millennium. The village was depopulated of its Arab residents by Jewish forces on May 13, 1948, one day before the new State of Israel was declared." This would avoid the Palestinian/Arab terminology issue and the historically accurate second sentence about the depopulation of Arabs by Jews make the 1948 reality perfectly clear. --GHcool (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I would also be offer up a 3rd compromise, which explicitly allows for "Palestinian" is the sense of 'located in Palestine', e.g; "Kafr Saba (Arabic: كفر سابا‎) was a village in Palestine famous for its shrine dating to the Mamluk period and for a history stretching back for more than a millennium. The village was depopulated of its Arab residents by Jewish forces on May 13, 1948, one day before the new State of Israel was declared." LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt a second compromise attempt, it is the same thing you wanted before completely removing the word Palestinian and the link to Palestinian people. This goes backwards from what we had and disregards the sources that were presented that affirm it was a "Palestinian" village. nableezy - 21:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us in favor of the limited definition of "Palestinian" have put several offers on the table for a compromise (a solution in which neither side get 100% of what they want, but is acceptable to both sides). All of our offers have been rejected by the editors in favor of the expanded definition of "Palestinian." To break the cycle of minimalist proposals and minimalist rejections, I'd like to invite the maximalists to propose a compromise that the minimalists might find satisfactory. Perhaps we can start a healthy negotiation process rather than a proposal/rejection cycle. --GHcool (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are just words; you're proposing no compromise. You want to remove from the first sentence that it was a Palestinian-Arab village, and you haven't wavered from that position. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin is right. What I wrote above are words and I am not proposing a compromise at this time. Since, as SlimVirgin observed, my attempts have not been satisfactory, I invite SlimVirgin (or any other "maximalist" on the definition of "Palestinian") to propose a compromise that might be satisfactory to both sides. --GHcool (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to suggest a compromise, because I don't know what you're hoping to achieve. The only thing I have seen you do is try to remove that it was a Palestinian-Arab village. What, other than complete removal of that from the first sentence, would satisfy you? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think those of us on the "minimalist" side would be fine with something to the effect of "Kafr Saba was an Arab village in Palestine." This proposal has been rejected. I was even willing to accept "Kafr Saba was a Palestinian [linked to Palestine, not Palestinian people], Arab village," but that too was rejected.

We all agree (1) that the village was inhabited by Arabs, (2) that those Arabs lived in Palestine, and (3) that those Arabs were subjected to the 1948 exodus from Palestine. The issue is whether these Arabs can be identified as "Palestinians" or not. The minimalists say they cannot, and if it were up to us, we would side step the 3 points made above entirely. This does not seem appropriate to the maximalists, and so we are trying to include the 3 points keeping the language neutral and appropriate to the 1948 period. Help from the maximalists in achieving this goal would be appreciated. --GHcool (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you not want "Palestinian" linked to Palestinian people? Are you saying they were not Palestinians or Palestinian Arabs in 1948? Please don't refer me to previous posts from you, because I haven't understood them. A clear answer here would be appreciated, and might help us to move on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by "Palestinian" and when did that meaning come into existence?

SlimVirgin asked a legitimate question above. Whole books have been written on the subject. The topic is fascinating to me so forgive my indulgence in giving a long answer.

My handy Apple Dictionary defines the adjective "Palestinian" as "of or relating to Palestine or its peoples." This can be further broken down into two definitions:

"of or relating to Palestine" (geographic definition)
"of or relating to the peoples of Palestine" (national definition)

What I am saying is that in the context of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, the Arab villagers of Kafr Saba were "Palestinian" by the geographic definition, but not by the national definition since the idea of a "Palestinian people" either had not yet existed or was in its infancy. Legitimate, rigorous historians of the Middle East differ on when exactly the Palestinian identity/nation formed. Crackpots and Palestinian propagandists say that the Palestinian identity formed in biblical times. This is nonsense and every reliable historian, including every Palestinian/Arab historian, rejects it as such. The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East (ed. Avraham Sela) states, "The identity of [Palestine's] Arab population ... was comprised primarily of allegiance to their religious community, habitat and family (the village and clan)" (665).

Palestinian Arab historian Rashid Khalidi has written the most comprehensive book I've seen on the subject. Its called Palestinian Identitiy. In the book, he argues that the modern day Palestinian identity developed during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. This is the earliest I've seen a legitimate scholar place the development of the Palestinian identity. This identity was found in the streets of Jerusalem, Haifa, and other large cities. Arabs from small villages like Kafr Saba would not have identified with the Arab rioters as "Palestinians," but rather, as fellow "Arabs" or "Muslims."

In his various writings, Israeli historian Efraim Karsh takes the view that the Palestinian identity did not develop until after the 1967 war because the Palestinian exodus had fractured society so greatly that it was impossible to piece together a national identity. Between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians and other Arab countries hosting Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel silenced any expression of Palestinian identity and occupied their lands more brutally than the Israelis ever did after 1967.

My personal opinion is that the Palestinian identity developed in fits and starts and at different speeds in different places some time between the 1930s and 1960s with the 1948 Palestinian exodus being the key moment in the development of the identity. I take the middle ground between Khalidi and Karsh, both of whom would not describe Kafr Saba as "Palestinian" in the national sense of the term. --GHcool (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what?

I suggest we stop looking at this lead from the point of view of the writers and start looking at it from the point of view of the readers. Do you think the reader gives a witch's tit whether the word "Palestinian" appears in the first sentence of the lead or in the second? Do you think that the reader, when he sees "Palestinian-Arab village" instead of "Palestinian residents", will immediately understand the cosmic importance of this distinction, as explained in the thousands of words logged so far on this discussion page?

The truth is, if you were reading what the lead actually says, you would see that the really ridiculous claim is that the village is "famous for its shrine dating to the Mamluk period". Famous? There is one report of one traveler visiting this tomb of a highly forgettable local dignitary in its entire history. No one had heard of the place until Khalidy included it in his book. The lead elevates this ruin to the importance of the Eiffel Tower.

My advice is: forget about in exactly which place the word Palestinian will appear, and start dealing with the real content of the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to GHcool's reply above that " ...in the context of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, the Arab villagers of Kafr Saba were "Palestinian" by the geographic definition, but not by the national definition since the idea of a "Palestinian people" either had not yet existed or was in its infancy," I suggest we adopt the position of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which uses the term "Palestinian Arab" for the 19th century in some of its articles — e.g. in "Palestine: People": Both Zionists and Palestinian Arab nationalists have at various times since the 19th century claimed rightful possession of the area west of the Jordan River."

It also explicitly says it will use "Palestinian" to refer to Palestinian Arabs, including during the British Mandate period. It explains a bit about the issue here (subscription only, so I can't link, but you find it in History » Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67) » The term “Palestinian”:

Henceforth the term Palestinian will be used when referring to the Arabs of the former mandated Palestine, excluding Israel. Although the Arabs of Palestine had been creating and developing a Palestinian identity for about 200 years, the idea that Palestinians form a distinct people is relatively recent. The Arabs living in Palestine had never had a separate state. Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by the Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century; at the same time, most saw themselves as part of the larger Arab or Muslim community. The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people. But after 1948—and even more so after 1967—for Palestinians themselves the term came to signify not only a place of origin but, more importantly, a sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, would you be open to the idea of keeping the lead sentence the way it is while adding a footnote to the short paragraph you quote above? --GHcool (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shrine

I cant believe we have to do this again, but Chesdovi apparently feels that this should whitewashed into "currently administered" and completely removing the Benvinisti quote. Please explain the reasoning. nableezy - 14:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where has this been "dealt with" here? Huldra just shows where it is "cited", (not even exclusively in regard to this particular shrine), but that is not the problem here, POV is. We do not need the Benvenisti quote here. Shall we add everyone’s view on what has occurred at this shrine?! We only quote him for facts, not personal POV. This page is not comprehensive enough for this POV quote. If there is a page on the shrine itself, then his quote could be included. Chesdovi (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was dealt with through editing and at WT:ISRAEL. And yes, when an established expert gives his opinion we cite it as his opinion, which is exactly what we are doing here. nableezy - 15:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At WT:ISRAEL it seems there was an attempt to settle this, but it was by no means conclusive:

"...rewrote the section in question and offered up a compromise that was acceptable to several editors, but not to all. Additional viewpoints would be appreciated on the Talk page of the article".

I can not see any additional viewpoints on this talk page. It is my view that this quote is grossly misplaced here on the grounds of Undue weight. Chesdovi (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The not acceptable to all bit was about how to say what kind of village it was "Palestinian-Arab" or just "Arab". But nobody messed with the shrine edits of Ravpapa, seemed acceptable to all. The Arab issue also has been resolved. nableezy - 16:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again at Former Arab village of Kafr Saba where the "offending words" are in bold type and refer exclusivley to Benvenisti's quote. Chesdovi (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, my point was after Ravpapa's edit that issue was not raised again until now, LOTRQ reference was to a dispute that had been occurring related to the use of Palestinian-Arab to describe the town. That also was resolved. You can look at the history of the article to see that. nableezy - 16:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it a bit more to make it clearer what the relationship is between the two Benvenisti statements. If people think it was better before my changes, please feel free to restore what was there. Tiamut^talk 16:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ravpapa's edit on 12th August 2009 was left, but as User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen suggested, I have now added my viewpoint. I concur with User:Davshul that this quote is out of place here. We would also not add in a similar vein: According to X, "not since the end of the Middle Ages had the civilized world witnessed the wholesale restoration of sacred sites belonging to the members of one religious community, previously sequestered by another." Chesdovi (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was out of place in the lead, but in the body there is no issue. That section is talking specifically about the shrine and what has happened since 48 so it fits fine. nableezy - 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay to quote what a person believed happened in reality, but we don't have personal views quoted like this here. That’s why is fine to quote Benny Morris and Walid Khalidi who describe what happened, and Meron Benvenisti commenting on what remains at the site. But we don’t write what Meron Benvenisti thinks himself about the event. (It’s not as if his statement in without controversy: He describes the Hebrew draperies at the tomb as ""a wholesale appropriation" of the site, yet also notes that "dedicated inscriptions from the Mamluk period remain engraved on the stone walls!”) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for his opinions. Having this quote here in a paragraph of six lines is Undue weight. Chesdovi (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its undue weight, though I do think we could paraphrase some of what he says and place the full quote in a footnote for those who would like to read more. This is after all an article about a village that was depopulated and what became of its village structures, including it holy shrine. So its relevant and reliably sourced. You are right to suggesting that quoting all the informatin may not be necessary, but I think its a style call, rather than a policy one. Tiamut^talk 17:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Yamin in the lead

In the lead: The Nabi Yamin shrine was taken over by an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect following the depopulation of the Palestinian-Arab residents. The lead already states that the village was depopulated. We can mention this point in its current context, i.e. that the shrine is currently occupied by members of an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect. We need not emphasis the depopulation point again. Chesdovi (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done. though I say "taken over" needs to be used, it isnt just now used by said sect. nableezy - 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think the Benvenisti quote is wasted on this article. After all, Benjamin, son of Jacob, was Jewish and was one of the fathers of the Jewish nation. So there is some justification for Jews (if they believe the pretty dubious claim that Benjamin is buried there) to make the place holy to them as well.

There are much better examples of Muslim shrines being taken over for Jewish religious purposes, where there is no historical justification for it. The mosque of Yehud, which is right down the street from me, is a prime example. It was a synagogue for a long while.

Also, Benvenisti is wrong when he says that this kind of religious imperialism hasn't been seen in the last 150 years. It happens all the time all over the world. In India a few years ago there was bloodshed when Hindus took over a Sikh shrine. Churches have been converted into mosques in Iran, Britain, and elsewhere, sometimes peacably and sometimes not See, for example, this NYT story. Read this fatwa: "Indeed there is evidence in the Sunnah that it is permissible to build mosques in places of Shirk [associating partners to Allaah], and churches are included in this, after changing the slogans of disbelief." Truth be told, in the United States and Britain, churches, mosques and synagogues are often treated as real estate: Jewish and Muslim congregations buy churches for their use and no one bats an eye.

All this is said not to sanction the heinous takeover of Muslim religious sites by Jewish fanatics (as is the case here), but simply to point out that we are aiming our artillery at the wrong target. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem

This article has been tagged as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) It will likely be deleted after one week unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Major contributions by contributors who have been verified to have violated copyright in multiple articles may be presumptively deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

Interested contributors are invited to help clarify the copyright status of this material or rewrite the article in original language at the temporary page linked from the article's face. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "was an Palestinian Arab village"

I just changed to "was a Palestinian Arab village". This is the term used in nearly all other articles such as those in Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kafr Saba. 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) 06:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kafr Saba. 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) 01:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guerin

To editor Huldra: Guerin has multiple pages on Kefr Saba, starting on p357 in Samarie vol 2. Zero^talk 04:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Zero0000: Yeah, I see, my Samarie 2 was a mess (Sigh: mixed up a couple of the Tira-places), trying to clear it up, Huldra (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]