Talk:Khulda

SWP
The SWP-ref for this village is vol II, p.408. However, I cannot find that page on the net..it looks as if it goes directly fro p400 to p 409: http://www.archive.org/stream/surveyofwesternp02conduoft#page/400/mode/2up Huldra (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The PDF file (which I assume is the same) goes ...,399,400,409,410-416,409,410,... No page 408.  I don't have another source except interlibrary.  I ordered pages 401-408 and will send them. Zerotalk 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The largest building, still standing
The largest building still standing from Khulda (and noted by Petersen),  is now taken over by Israeli sculptor Gadi Fraiman, see: http://www.gadi-fraiman.com/epages/studio.aspx?p=1    --Huldra (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

stuff

 * There was a nearby Jewish settlement during the mandate period called Hulda. I don't know how they were related. Zerotalk 00:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)  Oh, I guess it was this. 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hulda, Israel is still there, and, according to Petersen, the Khulda ruins stand at the southern end of Kibbutz Hulda. Huldra (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure he says that? On a modern map, the ruins are marked at Mishmar David with Hulda being about 2km away in the NW direction. Zerotalk 00:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Petersen gives the location as: 1408.1360    and: 31.49N/34.54E...and the following description: "This abandoned village stands on a hill overlooking Zomet Hulda (Hb.) (Hulda Junction). The ruins of the pre-1948 village stand at the southern end of the Israeli settlement of Kibbutz Hulda (Hb.)" Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that location agrees (within about 100m) with my maps, which show it on the edge of Mishmar David opposite to where Hulda is. (I have leave for a few hours, bye for now..) Zerotalk 01:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw: tale a look at the articles linked at Talk:Mishmar_David..and especially the different presentation! ;D..some of that (the Ummayyad-stuff)-should really be incorporated here, Huldra (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Text from Tsafir's Tabula Imperii Romani (p148, ref 140136): Ruins of buildings in the Shephelah, Greek inscriptions, ritual installation (?), possibly Samaritan. Roth-Gerson, pp. 54-57, nos. 12-13 * Yalqut, par. 98 * Avi-Yonah, Bull. Rabinowitz 3 (1960), pp. 57-60 * Vogel, Bibl., p. 38 * EAEHL IV, p. 1136 * Hüttenmeister-Reeg I, pp. 176-178;  II, p. 602 * MPI, no. 104.  The ones not in Hebrew or too obscure are: Vogel = "Bibliography of Holy Land Sites," Hebrew Union College Annual, 42 (1971) 1-96, 52 (1981) 1-92 and 58 (1987) 1-63. EAEHL = Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (I think I have the "New" version of this).  MPI = Asher Ovadiah and Ruth Ovadiah, Mosaic Pavements in Israel - Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine, Rome, 1987. Zerotalk 01:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom
We have until April 30th-May 1st to nominate this. Any preferences for a hook?  T i a m u t talk 19:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I´m pretty blank on this, but I would love it if you could "flesh out" the Mujir al-Din-quote? The French version is on the net. (Incidentally; it seems as if Khalidi missed this.) Perhaps something very general; as to Khulda being a depopulated village, with documented history at least back to the Crusader times? Huldra (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey ... I don't think Khalidi reads French ;). I'll try to flesh it out a bit but its a little confusing to me what the titles are of the people being mentioned in English. Your hook suggestion is good (and along the lines of what I was thinking). I'll get to this over the next couple of days. By the by, Sheikh Danun has been nommed, as per your request. And if you have any more information on Hableh, it would be greatly appreciated, as it may be very close to getting to DYK status. Cheers my dear.  T i a m u t talk 21:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am so clueless about Hableh: don´t have any specific sources there (I see it developes very nicely without me, though!)
 * And Khalidi might not read French, but I assume he reads Arabic, and since 1866 Mujir al-Din has been extensively published in Arabic. In fact; Khalidi lists a 1973 Amman 2 vol version in the bibliography (1992, p.614). Naah, sorry; I think he just missed it.
 * And I am of course tempted by a hook like: "DYK...that the whole of Khulda belongs indisputably, to User:Huldra, as proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, by the fact that it was called "Huldre" in Crusader times?" (Sorry; couldn´t resist that ;))..Huldra (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Zero0000 pitched in on Hableh just enough to bring it up to DYK status. Found a bunch of stuff on its status today too, which pushed it right over the top. Lots of alt spellings for the place which had to be discovered step by step.
 * Ah yes, you are probably right about Khalidi. To be fair, Mujir al-Din wrote thousands of page in his grand opus and there was probably no search function available to Khalidi at the time. ;)
 * Sorry, but the DYK hook doesn't mention you (except as an author). There is no reliable source indicating that Huldre is a variation of Huldra, though if it were up to me, it would belong to you. At least it would be in the hands of someone dedicated to preserving its history.
 * I've piggybacked onto your work at Sulam. Thanks to the tons of refs provided by Zero000 to IAA reports, its history is coming along quite nicely. Let me know when you feel comfortable with a nom there too. I know there's still a lot to do. Cheers my dear.  T i a m u t talk 14:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Source
User:Huldra, your last edit summary on this page alleges that an edit in which a book was cited was not a "reliable source." The book was NOT published by Remon, as you allege, but rather by the "Tabenkin Memorial," in Ramat Ef'al, and written by Joseph Tabenkin, the commander of the Harel Brigade during Israel's War of Independence. The book is available in Israel's public libraries, including the Hebrew University Library. If you feel, for any reason, that the source is unreliable, I suggest that you consult the Wikipedia "Reliable Sources" forum and ask them.Davidbena (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A book written by an active participant should never be used as a source for facts, unless maybe if they are completely innocuous and non-controversial. A better case could be made for using it for assertions attributed to one of the warring parties or to a particular involved person. Also, this sounds like a memoir, and historians regard memoirs as among the least reliable historical sources. Zerotalk 05:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully disagree, since the author is a first-hand source for events that unfolded in that war. The book has clear historical value, and includes maps and various citations. The book deals almost entirely with Operation Nachshon. Your view does not surprise me, insofar that you have often - throughout our years of correspondence - taken a proactive, pro-Palestinian stand in nearly all matters of dispute. The information here cited is so vital and important that anyone who is in the pro-Palestinian camp would want to expunge this information. Our job, however, is to be neutral and to be impartial in our editing, as well as to report the facts as they appear in these reliable sources.Davidbena (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * David, your reply is beneath you. Do you think I couldn't make similar comments about you? But that's not my style; you should try it. Zerotalk 10:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant no offense by it, my friend. My only intention is to stress that we ought to be impartial editors, and write the truth, so much as that is possible without infringing upon Wikipedia censorship.Davidbena (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about my edit line...my edit lines are often messed up. I am not sorry about the deletion, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, Huldra (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

David, nearly every editor agreed this is a primary source that should be used with caution if at all. Please find reliable secondary sources for the material rather than simply returning the problematic source.  nableezy  - 17:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the only reason why I emended the text was because the RS Noticeboard said that it was indeed a Primary source that could be used only with caution, and, even so, two editors agreed there that Tabenkin's statement should be premised with "According to Joseph Tabenkin, etc." The actual reference to Tabenkin's words was only in one sentence. Anyway, I will not press the edit, unless there is a consensus here to add it. Such details may not be all that important in these articles.Davidbena (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)