Talk:Shefa-Amr

jewish terror in shefa-amr
why does this article include a jewish terror section but the article about tel aviv doesn't include an arab terror section? or the article about herzliya, netanya, kfar sava, jerusalem.. and the list goes on. the terror in the city is already covered in the article about netan zada. this section should be removed or a terror section should be added to every city in israel that was attacked by arab terror. Erwin138 14:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Because a POV-pusher renamed "Violence in Shfar'am" to "Jewish terror in Shefa-Amr". I've reverted to the previous version now.  Tomer TALK  17:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * he renamed it because the section deals only with jewish terror. i'd expect to see a review about violence in genereal in Shefa-Amr like rapes, thefts, murders etc, and maybe a few words about the reasons why natan zada was killed. because today israeli networks showed footages in which he is seen alive in the bus, the policemen are with him but they can't do anything to save him. Erwin138 21:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Greek Orthodox?
Now the article states that the two male victims of the 2005 shootings were buried in a "Christian" cementary. But were they not Greek Orthodox? ...I seem to remember having seen that somewhere? Perhaps a link to Orthodox Church of Jerusalem is correct? Does anybody know? Huldra 09:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Most Israelis who are Jews don't recognize the different movements in Christianity so if an Israeli wrote that they were buried in a Christian cemetery, he could've meant Greek Orthodox, catholic, or anything. This can easily be fixed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

They were both catholic and were burried in the catholic cemetery, i've updated it. Golfgti 13:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

two things
1. The Hebrew version says that Shefaram was only recognized as a city in 1987, contrary to what the article says. I don't know who's right.
 * All that stuff was unreferenced which is a good way to introduce errors. I could not find anything anywhere else. The material about Arab towns having to struggle for recognition is of dubious truth value and relevance here - so I just took it all out. If we can find out when it became a city then we should add it. I don't think Nazareth had any trouble being recognized has a city. If there were towns that had trouble in this respect, it should be recorded there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewnews (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

2. There is a lot more to add about the ancient history of the city. I think it was one of the centers of the Sanhedrin, (if i recall correctly) and I am sure there is much more.

Also, I think the beginning of the article should be rewritten. The second and third paragraphs do not really focus on city; The stuff about the mayor and knesset member should appear maybe at the end of the article. nadav 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Article name
Shefa-Amr, according to Google, is a more popular name for the city than Shfar'am or Shefar'am - unsurprisingly, given its ethnic composition. - Mustafaa 07:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Mustafaa, you are wrong about the google results. "Shfaram" yields 55,700 results in Google. Shefa-Amr gives 15,600 results. Is the Wikipedia policy that more popular (by Google) versions be used for names? If so we'd have to change it, but personally I think it does seem unfair since its residents today are Arab. nadav 04:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK then why is it listed as Shefa-Amr and called Shefa-Amr. It is not a town in an Arab country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewnews (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the self-contradiction
Why is the template on the article? AnonMoos 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancient "ARAB" town
Shfaram, which is the correct and official name, was not an Arab town in ancient times, as the article itself shows. It was Jewish. The name of the town, and the name of the entry in Wikipedia, should be Shfaram. Towns in Poland that were formerly German are not listed only under their German name. Mewnews (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

when i wrote it i stated it was an ancient cenaany town then jewish and afterwards arab, someone change it. you are right, please change it back. about the name i think it should stay as it is because its an arab town nowadays. M5Power (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to have changed it or someone did so it is just ancient. When we find out ancient what then we can say more. Mewnews (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

History section
I did some copy editing. But there was a claim that it was a Canaanite city which is possible, but no evidence was produced and no references. I removed it because I didn't know what could be said with accuracy. If someone has a reference to archaeological digs or other info it should be added. Also if it is mentioned in the bible that should be added. All the Jewish references are late and we should have specifics of where it is mentioned in connection with revolts and which revolts) Thanx Mewnews (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a citizen of the city and i can tell u for sure it was a Canaanite city, its a known fact. also i have a booklet about the city which states that clearly (the name of the booklet is stated under refferances). im puting back what you deleted. and why did u delete the fact that it was declared a city ever since 1948? this fact is true and if you check the hebrew version you'll find that the vice mayor of shefa-amr stated it was diclared a city in 1905/6 thats why Israel didn't change its status. M5Power (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

more refs
Zerotalk 14:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * archaeological report:
 * Guérin. Galilée I, 410-14: Chefa A'mer (Chefaram)
 * Finn, Byways, p243-244.

incorrect claim removed from article
Removed for discussion:
 * "Shefa-'Amr was part of the area allocated to the Jewish state by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, the partition plan of November 29, 1947. It was defended by Arab Liberation Army troops led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji, but conquered by Israeli forces on July 14, 1948. [Herzog and Gazit, 2005, p. 79.]

I haven't been able to see page 79 of this source, but other pages seem rather propagandistic. The reason I removed it is that it starts with a completely false claim. Shefa-'Amr was in the Arab part of the partition. You can check this for yourself on this UN map; look east from Haifa, the village location is at the lower left corner of the "S" of "Shafa". You can also read the formal description in Resolution 181 but it is hard to follow without a map of the village lands. Since this basic fact is wrong, I think we need a better source for the rest of the sentence too. Zerotalk 08:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The source says no such thing, and it is not propagandistic. I have reviewed the entire chapter and the facts presented in the source seem solid to me. Good call on finding the incorrect information. The only sentence mentioning Shfaram is:
 * As soon as it became evident from the disposition of the Lebanese Army that the Lebanese would not intervene from the north, Laskov directed his forces eastward towards Nazareth, taking Shfaram on the Acre-Nazareth road on 14 July.
 * —Ynhockey (Talk) 03:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that all of the two sentences apparently cited to Herzog and Gazit don't appear there? As I mentioned, I didn't see p79 at all.  There are other sources saying the ALA was stationed there, so I have no objection to that being in the article.  Zerotalk 06:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that the person who inserted the information sourced the second part ("It was defended by Arab Liberation Army troops led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji, but conquered by Israeli forces on July 14, 1948"), but the first part somehow got in there (maybe inserted by another editor). I don't think it's worth our effort at this point to find out exactly how the information got there (although if you have spare time, feel free to do so). In any case, the information about the date of capture and defenders seems accurate and I have found no source that contradicts it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No Move at this time. Although there may be sufficient sentiment to move to a new title, there is not sufficent consensus on what that new title should be. Any move should be held in abeyance until consensus is reached on a specific new title. (see comments at end of this dicussion) Mike Cline (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

relisting for further discussion --Aervanath (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC) relisting see below Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Shefa-& → Shefar'am – Per WP:Naming conventions (geographic names), Shefar'am (and variations in spelling) seem to be by far more common in English than the current name of the article. A google books search returns about 12,000 4,470 hits for Shefar'am (and another ~6,000 for Shfaram and Shefaram which are variations), and about 8,500 2,220 for Shefa-'Amr. In general google searches the ratio is also about 2:1 for Shefar'am. Totals with variations (feel free to add more):
 * Google:
 * Shefar'am - ~200,700 - Shefar'am   44,700   Shefaram   16000        Shfaram     140,000


 * Shefa 'Amr  ~417,000  "Shefa 'Amr" 309,000  "Shafa 'Amr"  60,700  "Shafa Amer" 47,900


 * Google books:
 * Shefar'am - ~8,900 - Shefar'am 4,430, Shefaram 2,140, Shfaram 2,320
 * Shefa-'Amr - ~6,300 - Shefa 'Amr 2,210, Shafa 'Amr 4,090 "Shafa Amer" 86


 * News sites (counting only English results and not blogs or talkbacks):
 * BBC:
 * Shfaram - 10
 * Shefa-Amr - none.
 * CNN:
 * Shfaram - 7
 * Shefa-Amr - none.
 * Guardian:
 * Shfaram - 7
 * Shefa-Amr - none.
 * Reuters:
 * Shfaram - 4
 * Shefa-Amr - none.

(the current list is the result of multiple edits. Not sure if I'm supposed to sign each one. Some of the responses below might relate to less information than is currently present) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The town's official web site uses Shefaram in the url. See http://www.shefaram.muni.il/dynamika/default.asp?id=3078


 * Disagree. The difference in usage is too small to compensate for the dissonance of using a Hebrew name for an Arab location. Zerotalk 08:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2:1 is not a small difference and policy says we use the name most commonly used in English. Shefar'am is one of the two official names of the place, and "the dissonance of using a Hebrew name for an Arab location" doesn't strike me as a policy based argument. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In regular Google, using the variations you mention, I get Shefa-'Amr: 89,500; Shefar'am: 23,700; Shfaram: 39,900; Shefaram: 13,800. A win for the current spelling.  We could add Shfa Amr: 3,640; Shefa Amer: 2,700; Shfa Amer: 2,300 to emphasize it. We should both note the warning at WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) about the reliability of large Google counts, but the fact is that you didn't prove your case. Zerotalk 09:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In regular google I get 318,000 for Shefar'am, 137,000 for Shefa-'Amr, but I think google books is considered more reliable for this. Anyway, I believe I did prove my case, but we'll see what other people think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Compare these: Shefar'am (315,000), "Shefar'am" (23,700).  Because of the punctuation character in the word, you have to use quotes or it will match pages with "Shefar" and "am" in different places.  Go forward a few thousand hits and you will see even things like "She's far" in one place and "am" in another. Zerotalk 11:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. There are still substantially more hits in google books for Shefar'am though. I'll correct the request. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per No More Mr. Nice Guy--Geewhiz (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The g-hits argument put forward by NMMNG doesn't bear out as demonstrated by Zero0000. Current title seems to be both the most common name used in English and the transliteration of the Arabic name used by the inhabitants of the town. I don't see a convincing policy based rationale to change it to an English transliteration of the Hebrew name for the town which is not the name used by those who live there.  T i a m u t talk 19:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The google books argument (as ignored by Zero) does indeed bear out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it does, given that you did not include alternate spellings for the Arabic name in English, such as "Shafa 'Amr" 4,090 hits and "Chefa'Amr" 570 hits, among others mentioned by Zero0000 above (and others still not mentioned). So as he said, the difference is negligible and a general google search clearly favours the current title. Being in widespread use, in line with our naming policies and representative of what the people living there call it, why change it to something not clearly more widespread and not what its inhabitants call it?  T i a m u t talk 21:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Chefa'Amr" contains no English sources that I could see. Shafa 'Amr also contains many non-English sources (and hundreds of repetitions of one document), but even if we include it, there is still a large advantage to Shefar'am. What its inhabitants call it is not a consideration (I learned that from you, among other people). See WP:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what's the "large advantage" to Shefar'am exactly? The current title is the local name for the place, and is practically on par in a google scholar search. Yes there are more google book hits for Shefar'am than Shefa'Amr but Shafa'Amr gets almost as many hits as the name you are proposing. I'm not seeing what in the naming conventions is supporting your proposal for a name change. And the local name for a place is a consideration, "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name." In this case, we have multiple English transliterations for this place that are widely used. Using the one that coincides with local name is appropriate and in line with the recommendations as I read them.  T i a m u t talk 22:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you take a closer look at the google scholar results, you'll see that in the case of Shefa Amr many of those are just in the address. Filter out the zip code and you're at almost 2:1.
 * Anyway, I'll add the totals at the top of this section for easier reference. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The crucial criterion is prevailing use in modern English sources, and that is best determined with reference to Google Books and Google Scholar. As both of those indicate that Shefar'am is the accepted modern convention when referring to the town, the article should accordingly be renamed Shefar'am. Regarding User:Tiamut's dissent on account of what the town's inhabitants supposedly call it, beyond the fact that the claim itself is debatable depending on the circumstances, WP:EN still instructs us to follow what's "most common in the English language," i.e. Shefar'am.—Biosketch (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see no evidence that the English spelling for the current name of the town is in fact Shefar 'am. In fact, looking at the first page of the results of this search shows exactly 1 result using the Hebrew transliteration for a current name of a town (Perspectives on Israeli anthropology By Esther Hertzog is the one). The rest of the results are discussing Crusader-era history, and to use those results here is anachronistic. Some more evidence is necessary. But even if one were to accept that all of the sources are valid for determining the common English name for this town (which I dont), the results of the google searches are not indicative of one name being more common. Less than a 1.5:1 ratio is not overwhelming. I point others to what WP:EN says: Search engines are problematic unless their verdict is overwhelming; modified letters have the additional difficulties that some search engines will not distinguish between the original and modified forms, and others fail to recognize the modified letter because of optical character recognition errors. The verdict here is certainly not overwhelming, even less so when one examines individual results.  nableezy  - 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your search results might be because you're searching for a variant with ~150 hits. If you search for "Shefar'am" as I linked to above, you will see most of the hits on the first page are modern, not to mention that if this is an issue, the first page of a search for "Shefa-'Amr" returns mostly pre-1948 usage. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, pretty overwhelming in English news sources, don't you think? See the links I added in the request. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the news results I would support a move to Shfaram. Not Shefar'am.  nableezy  - 00:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC) s/o on 20:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC), see below for reasons.  nableezy  - 20:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same word only transliterated in a slightly different way. I'm not sure which should be used according to wiki policy. The "proper" Shefar'am (which is more popular in books apparently) or Shfaram which is more common in news sources. It's pretty obvious that in English language sources the Hebrew name is more common, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. Filibustering to the contrary just does not count. Sorry.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Zero. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support—I was actually very surprised by this, but the nominator clearly showed the prevalence of Shefar'am in major English-language media. Combined with the fact that we don't know the general WP:COMMONNAME (as Nableezy points out), it appears that there's no reason to use a name less well-known to English speakers. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per BioSketch, Ynhockey. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If I understand the proposal, the article is currently at Shefa-'Amr, a transliteration of the شفاعمرو, Šafā ʻAmr and the proposal is to move to Shfar'am or a similar transliteration of the שְׁפַרְעָם, Šəfarʻam. Tell me if I've got that wrong, I think it's important and it wasn't obvious from discussion above.


 * The town in question is in the North District of Israel, and in the arguably undisputed part of it (rather than in the Golan Heights). However the population of the town is predominantly Arabic rather than Hebrew speaking.


 * Evidence seems to be all based on Internet searches of some sort, which tend to favour the Hebrew, and the argument is that this represents the common name in English. But does it? Unconvinced. I think this bears more reflection, so relisting. Andrewa (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for accurately summarizing what was unstated in the move proposal. There does not seem to be a clear winner among any of the proposed article names. The two leaders in google book searches are Shefar'Am (an English transliteration of the town's biblical Hebrew name) and Shafa'Amr (an English transliteration of its Arabic name). Looking at what RS have to say about the name, I found the following:


 * "On another occassion, the unit was sent by night to attack a house near Shefa-'Amr (Shefar'Am in Hebrew)."


 * "MG western Galilee to MG HQ, "Imposing Curfew of Shefar'am", 16 November 1949, ISA 179, 1/25 (note: "Shefar'am" is the Hebrew spelling for the Arabic village Shefa'Amr)"


 * Discussing the Israeli policy of renaming Palestinian towns and villages after the creation of the state of Israel, Nadia Yaqub writes : "Shafa'Amr, which contains an old synagogue but has not had Jewish residents since the 1920s, is identified as Shefar Am"


 * In my view, the sources seem to be using the Arabic transliterations Shefa'Amr or Shafa'Amr as the modern name, with Shefar'Am identified as the Hebrew or Israeli name.  T i a m u t talk 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Two of your three examples are pre-1948 usage. Looking at google books it's pretty obvious that Shefar'am is used both in an historical contemporary context, so your argument doesn't really hold water. Not to mention that many if not most of the references to Shefa-'Amr are also of a historical nature.
 * Major English-language media outlets seem to use Shefaram exclusively and this unquestionably attests to modern usage, so per WP:COMMONNAME that's what we should use. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Funny, I see it differently. The sources are all written after 1948. And they all use an English transliteration of the Arabic form in their neutral voice as the default form. True, the first one is discussing events that took place before 1948, but I don't think that's evidence of the usage being in deference to the historical period being discussed. While they don't explicitly say the Arabic form is the most common name or modern form, they do all identify the English transliteration of the Hebrew form as being the Hebrew or Israeli name for the place. They don't identify this Hebrew or Israeli form as the most common English form or the modern name. The content of thr sources I have presented seem to support the current article name.  T i a m u t talk 20:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty obvious both are using the name common at the era they are discussing. Anyway, what do you think about the fact that major English language media outlets seem to use "Shfaram" exclusively? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I originally closed this as no consensus, but I have re-opened this for more discussion by request.--Aervanath (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Which name?
As there's a pretty obvious consensus to move the article, we need to decide which name to move to. I'm not aware of any guideline that tells us what to do, so based on the exclusive use of "Shfaram" in major English language media outlets, I think that should be the new name. If we're required to use the "proper" transliteration, then it should be "Shefar'am". Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Shfaram is the proper transliteration. The vowel is dropped due to smihut.--Geewhiz (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No More Mr Nice Guy; please do not misrepresent the discussion; as the admin above noted: there is no consensus. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the suggestion set forth by No More Mr Nice Guy is sound and reasonable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The admin who closed the discussion thought there was no consensus on what name to change to, not that there was no consensus to move the page, which 7:3 !votes certainly is. You can read all about it on their talk page. Please don't make such obviously false accusations. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? In addition to the 3 votes (which were counted) there were 2 others who voiced objections (but who were not counted). Also, I have added the google-search above (as you wrote we should feel free to add material). NB: you might get slightly other numbers (I do not get the same numbers as Zero and NMMNG above, but the difference is not so big that it should alter the result significantly. (I believe I get another result, as I am in a Non-English-speaking country. Even when I  type in google.com, I am  automatically  redirected to my local google.)
 * So: we have almost twice as many "common" usage name of Shefa 'Amr as of Shefar'am. At books, Shefar'am "leads" about 3:2. I actually agree with NMMNG that books should "weigh" more than usual google-search, but to let 8,900 count as  significantly more than  6,300 for books, while completely rejecting that  362,000  is significantly more than 200,700 for "normal" google: If one didn´t "assume good faith" here, one could be thinking that some people were looking for a principle which matched their POV.
 * Also: let us look in some detail as to why Shefar'am scores that highly on books: if you look at the result, it is because there is about a zillion books published about "old" Jewish history, and they of course virtually all use the Hebrew name. Hardly any scholars writing about the town´s history for the last millennium or two use the Hebrew name. For a start I checked my books by:  Meron Benvenisti, Yoav Gelber, Ilan Pappe, Walid  Khalidi,  Benny Morris, Andrew Petersen, & Schölch: every single one of them use "Shafa-'Amr"   "Shafa 'Amr"  "Shafa'amr". So, perhaps we should move the article to that name?  Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please move the arguments about why you think the article should not be moved to the section above (where your oppose !vote is already noted)? This part is for discussing what name the article should have if it is moved. I'll be happy to address your points there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The comments by Huldra have convinced me that the current name is the best one for the article, so I do not support any move.  nableezy  - 20:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's interesting since she didn't add any arguments not already presented by someone else, but you are of course entitled to change your !vote for whatever reason.
 * So we're currently at 7 in favor of moving (myself, Geewhiz, Biosketch, Brewcrewer, Ynhockey, Plot Spoiler, and Jiujitsuguy) and 4 opposing (Zero, Tiamut, Huldra and Nableezy). Still looks like a consensus to move to Shfaram. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone else listed what name scholars writing about the town´s history for the last millennium or two used? So sorry; missed that. Eeeeeh, could you please point it out? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To clear it up for NMMNG, it was specifically the books she cited that convinced me to change my mind. I can be convinced to change once again if you can provide sources of comparable quality using whatever alternative you wish to be the article name.  nableezy  - 23:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, which books did she cite? All she did is name a few authors which as we all know write mainly about the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That doesn't show what contemporary name is used for the place as opposed to current news reports which do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I misspoke. The authors she cited, and by extension the books by those authors. Thank you for bringing this mistake to my attention.  nableezy  - 01:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So she "convinced" you to change your mind by listing some historians she claims used a certain term in a context we don't know (but is very likely historical)? That's interesting. Like I said, you're entitled to change your !vote for whatever reason. Too bad you can't be honest about it, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am being honest, and the claim that I am not is both malicious and without basis. I have no reason to doubt Huldra, unlike others here I have never seen her misrepresent a source, and your effort to denigrate her comments on the usage by various sources is likewise without basis. Kindly refrain from such bad faith tactics as making unfounded attacks against other editors. Thank you for your cooperation.  nableezy  - 03:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not denigrate Huldra's comments. I noted she did not actually provide any sources and that we do not know the context in which her list of historians use the term, but that's it's probably a historical context. Kindly refrain from accusing me of personal attacks where there are none. As for your being honest about why you changed your !vote, I'll leave that for other editors to draw their own conclusions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The denigration was the use of the word claim to describe her comments on the use by each of the listed authors. And the claim that I am being dishonest is very obviously a personal attack. Kindly refrain from continuing to make such attacks. If you persist, I might be inclined to say why exactly I think you are pushing for this, and you may not appreciate that. Again, thank you for your cooperation.  nableezy  - 13:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this. Is it seriously being proposed that we Move this article to Shfaram based on a handful of google news hits? So we ignore the usage by the topmost scholars in the field when discussing the modern day Arab town, and go with what reporters use? On what basis? 7-4? That is not what consensus or our naming policies call for.  T i a m u t talk 17:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite elementary actually. We have two policies WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS, and both support the page move.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME clearly is against a move; see my google-search above. Huldra (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps when reading WP:COMMONNAME you missed the part where it says "When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search". As you said in your first comment in this section, "If one didn´t "assume good faith" here, one could be thinking that some people were looking for a principle which matched their POV". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes; in general. But there is the hitch: to repeat: the reason that the Hebrew version comes up with so many hits for books, is because there are a zillion books discussing a site which was there some 2000 years ago, or so. Therefore, not the most relevant to discuss the present city. You have simply not addressed this issue, AFAIK. (And sorry, no; I will not move my objections; that would look as if I accept your premise that the article should be moved. I don´t. ) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have addressed that point above. There are "a zillion" books that use both terms historically, for example, the ones you posted in the section below use "Shefa-'Amr" in a historical context. The news sources, which show current usage in English are quite conclusive. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that it hasnt been demonstrated that the common English name of the town is the Hebrew transliteration, and the discussion was closed as no consensus prior to the closing admin being lobbied to reverse his or her decision. So, yes, it is elementary, in that because there is no consensus for the move and because no specific name has been shown to be the common name the article should remain at this title.  nableezy  - 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the short discussion I had with the admin after he or she closed the request. Kindly stop misrepresenting their decision as no consensus to move or my asking for clarification as "lobbying". They thought there was no consensus on what to move to, and had no problem reopening the discussion so that could be clarified. That the same 4 editors who originally objected continue to object is not surprising. The evidence from the news sources really doesn't leave much room for interpretation and as brewcrewer noted above, policy is also quite clear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, misrepresenting? Look above, I originally closed this as no consensus, but I have re-opened this for more discussion by request. Kindly refrain from continuing the bad faith arguments that largely characterize your contributions here. Thank you.  nableezy  - 17:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, misrepresenting. Look at the discussion on the admin's talk page which both he and I linked to. He thought there was a consensus to move but not on what to move to, and asking for clarification and more discussion based on that clarification can hardly be charactarized as "lobbying". Calling my argument "bad faith" when you are deliberately misrepresenting what happened was a nice touch. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I quoted exactly what the admin wrote above, that you persist in such bad faith tactics as attacking me demonstrates the quality of your contributions here. Bye.  nableezy  - 21:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Awww, don't go away mad. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not mad, mildly amused, but also tired of dealing with those who resort to such bad faith gamesmanship. Bye.  nableezy  - 22:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of mildly amusing, the levels of projection in your last statement were kinda funny. But ok, not mad and not going away, just repeatedly saying "bye". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Im sorry my farewell displeases you. Ill try to satisfy you this time. I hope it will be more acceptable to your tastes. But unless you have something else to say besides calling me dishonest or whatever else you feel like projecting, I dont see what else there is to say about this. Huldra's arguments, both on the search results for each of the possible Arabic transliterations, as well as the use by books written by top quality authors, remain convincing to me. As I said, you can convince me to change my mind, but just calling people who disagree with you liars wont do that. Fare thee well my dearest, sincerely yours, forever and ever,  nableezy  - 00:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Au contraire mon ami, your farewell pleases me greatly. Mainly because you always come back to try and get the last word in. Will you be able to hold it in this time? Oh, the suspense is almost too much to bear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Town?
Why does this article refer to this region as being once a "Jewish" town when the word "Jew" is a recent introduction? This region's ancient roots are either Canaanite or Hebrew, both groups who were of African origins. The river where the general was healed were pervasive throughout that region and is where the ancient African water goddess' Isis, known as "Beth" dwelled. It was part of her temple in Bethlehem. All of that region was once under the rule of the ancient Egyptians, including Israel & Palestine. You have not dug deep enough into this ancient history, and clarity must be made that the current occupants of this region, including the present day Jews of Israel, are not ancestrally related to those ancient Hebrews of the Old Testament.74.229.102.208 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Another question, what does "A definite indication of a Jewish presence in Shefa'amr was in the 18th century" actually mean?? It is sourced to:

......the language in the article is not very clear, to say the least, Huldra (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh?
User:Greyshark09:  This edit I don´t understand. Somehow a Christian population was introduced in 1596; but Hutteroth and Abdulfattahs numbers show a fully Muslim place. Huldra (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I merely rearranged the sections of the article on history, with minor additions. Can your specify which paragraph are you referring to?GreyShark (dibra) 08:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Greyshark09: Sorry, my bad, I see now that the mistake was already in the article when you edited it. It was in fact an IP who vandalised  it, changing  "Muslim" to "Christian", back in February 2011,....and nobody noticed. Sigh. Huldra (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mini rome
I think you should mention that the city has been nicknamed mini Rome due to it's  similarities  between  itself and rome such  as its protected and have been built on the hils  near by and for its large catholic population. Vaziy (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Look in the Geography section. It needs a citation. Do you know of a suitable one? -- M.boli (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)