Talk:Shuafat

Refugee camp
This page is about the neighborhood of Shuafat, which is not the same as the refugee camp, which has a different status entirely. I believe the material on the refugee camp should be placed either in a separate section of the article, or in an article by itself. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's possible actually, given that the two are often discussed in tandem. See this for example Indeed, depending on who is using Shuafat, it refers to an area of varying size, made up of a number of smaller villages as well. We have to look at more sources before arbitrarily deleting information that seems to be associated with just the camp. Please restore it until we can decide how to cover the refugee issue. We can always farm it out to an article on the refugee camp (should we decide it is in fact separate from Shuafat village or town) later. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 19:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also this source which indicates that Shuafat refugee camp was declared to be part of the Jerusalem municipality in December of 1988 by the Civil Administration. Shuafat is also considered part of the Jerusalem municipality by Israel. It seems strange to parse out the refugee camp info from this article. Where is the divide between the two exactly?  T i a m u t talk 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also Btselem refers to "Shuafat refugee camp" and "Shuafat" as though they were one in the same, placing them both inside Jerusalem along with part of the neighbouring town of Anata which is separated from the rest of Anata by the separation barrier.  T i a m u t talk 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that there is confusion between the two, but they are not the same - The refugee camp doesn't receive services from the Jerusalem municipality but from UNWRA. The camp was created by King Hussein of Jordan, who moved the population there in 1966 (see the article linked to the bottom of the Shuafat page). The Palestinian Authority may one day take control of it, but in the meantime, UNWRA is supposedly in charge, and apparently not doing a very good job. The article states that Shuafat is a Palestinian Arab town annexed to Jerusalem, but the refugee camp doesn't fit that description. So maybe the article should have a separate section devoted to the camp and the goings on there which explains this. Here is the perfect opportunity to develop an article that clarifies a situation which is muddled in people's minds.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It could be compared to the articles on Rafah camp and Deir al-Balah camp. Obviously this is a slightly different situation but I believe the separation of the town and its camp should apply here as well. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I disagree. At least for the time being. I don't understand how we can separate the two, when the sources indicate that they are in fact connected and that both are located in the Jerusalem municpality according to Israel. I would prefer to continue developing the article referring to both, and then if the distinction is indeed made clearly by a source (which to date, has not been the case) we can farm out the material on the refugee camp at that point. Right now, what's being proposed is throwing out any information just on the refugee camp without any clear understanding of where it is or whether the other sources here are discussing the camp or the town (since both are referred to simply as Shuafat by many of the sources cited).


 * So, could someone please restore the material deleted as a good faith step? Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletions and change to sentence
Canadian Monkey, you made an edit deleting a study on the effects of violence on children in Shuafat, with an edit summary that it wasn't notable. I think that's debatable and would like to see the information restored, given that it's cited to source that specializes on the effects of violence on children. You also changed the text regarding Jordan and Israel's occupations of Shuafat so that there is "parity", but your change is factually incorrect since Jordan never annexed Shuafat. Might I propose the following wording instead:

"After the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Shuafat was occupied by Jordan who administered the West Bank and East Jerusalem until the 1967 Six-Day War when those areas were occupied by Israel. Shuafat was subsequently annexed by Israel into the municipal area of Jerusalem. Residents of Shuafat were offered Israeli citizenship, but most refused it, considering themselves to be illegally occupied, though many accepted permanent residency status instead."

 T i a m u t talk 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by "Jordan never annexed Shuafat". Transjordan annexed all the territory of the former British Mandate it occupied in 1950. Was Shuafat excluded from that annexation?
 * As to the deletion of the comments regarding the study, the comment I deleted was "Studies exploring the impact on children and youth in Shuafat at this time found...". The source cited for this actually talks about a single anecdote, not even a study, let alone multiple studies, whose focus is not Shuafat. It says "At MEND we have worked with several front line schools in the Ramallah and Bethlehem areas, e.g.in the Kalandia, Amari and Aida refugee camps and in Tekoa and Beit Jala, and have found very high levels of stress and fear. In one school I visited, quite near the beginning of the violence (in Shuafat refugee camp, which was under attack from settlers), when a group of teenage children..." It is misleading to describe this as "Studies exploring the impact on children and youth in Shuafat". Shuafat is mentioned in a parenthetical comment, as an anecdote. As such, this offhand mention is not notable enough for an article about Shuafat. Another issue is the claim that Shuafat was attacked by settlers. If this indeed happened, it needs to be sourced to a reputable source, such as a news report, not to an parenthetical comment in an article about a different topic which mentions the alleged attack in 6 words. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Canadian Monkey. Thanks for responding. I was unaware that Jordan had annexed the West Bank but after doing a little reading, I agree that the term can be used with reference to Jordan. It would have been nice if you had provided a source to save me some time and embarassment, but no matter.
 * Regarding the information about students in Shuafat having difficulties concentrating and the reference to the attack by settlers, I think it should be included. The source is a reliable, expert source on the problems faced by youth in conflict zones, so he's not speaking outside of his area of expertise. I don't think the reference to the drawings made by children in Shuafat is "anecdotal", it's part of his findings from his stay in the region. I'd be happy to look for other sources attesting to settler attacks, but the information doesn't seem to be irrelevant to this article at all. It speaks to the conditions of life in the camp and town.  T i a m u t talk 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I certainly didn't mean to cause you any embarrassment, or to waste your time. I'd have gladly provided you with a reference had you asked for one, I just assumed it was a pretty well knwon fact, which is mentioned quite prominently in our articles about Jordan and the West Bank.
 * With regard to the students reference, there are actually 2 issues here: (1) was Shuafat attacked by settlers, and (2) is the reference to Shuafat in your source which is about a group working to protect children notable enough for inclusion in this article. With regards to the first question, it is certainly possible that settlers attacked Shuafat (we have plenty of references to attack by Hebron settlers on their neighbors, for example), and if they did, it would certainly be relevant to the article - but we need to source such a claim to a reliable source (such as a newspaper article) that explicitly describes such an attack. The off-hand mention of such an alleged attack in a non-historical article about different subject matter is not enough. By way of analogy, it would be ok to write, in a manner similar to your edit, that "During the Second Intifada, terrorists from the Shuafat refugee camp attacked and murdered Israelis and then fled back to the refugee camp", and source it to this or this news report, but it would not be appropriate to make that claim and source it (hypothetically) to an article in the journal of RENEWABLE ENERGY, which mentioned a type of soil found near the north entrance to Shuafat (where Palestinian terrorists murdered Israelis). As to the second question, I don't think there's any doubt that Shuafat is part of what the MEND group describes as "front line schools", and that students in such schools may suffer from the conditions described. But the study (to the extent there even was such a study) is not about Shuafat, but about children in front line schools. The article does not describe "the conditions of life in the camp and town" - it describes children with conflict-induced stress, and mentions a school in Shuafat as one example, among many. It is inappropriate to highlight this non-notable anecdote about Shuafat. Are we going to include a similar line in the article about Tekoa? In the Kalandia article, too? and the Beit Jala one, too? If Wikipedia has an article about war-induced stress syndromes, we might mention this MEND group there, but not in every article about every locality in which the group members visited. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image
is there a better image we can use for this article? the current one is badly underexposed, and you can hardly make out anything from it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened to the picture, but it wasn't this dark before (which might sound stupid), I deleted it and I will upload a better version of it, but please discuss before just deleting it, deleting things then discussing why you deleted them is usless, since it can be readded, infact, up till now I had no clue why you deleted it, so I kept adding it. shaqip (talk) 11:57am, June 09, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're on about. You are responding to a note I put on this talk page nearly 4 months ago, explaining what is wrong with the picture, and asking for a new one. I didn't remove it, but waited for people to provide a better picture, or respond explaining why this one is good. Once a better picture was provided, I removed the old one, and clearly explained why I was doing so. Please take a little more care in the future, to read both edit summaries as well as talk page discussions, and then you won't find yourself with "no clue why" things happen Canadian Monkey (talk)`

Colonia
Roman colony rather than Jewish settlement? Many of the Roman troops in the area were "local recruits/enforced service"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The baths were not ritual baths just normal Roman Baths, and new papers are not exactly good references for archaeological details.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Template
It is improper to put the 'Palestinian Municipality' ttmeplate here. Shu'afat is, like it or not, administered as a neighborhood of Jerusalem, not as a village council, and it is not a part of the 'Jerusalem Governate' of the PLO, just liek Ma'ale Edomim, which resides in that territoy, is not part of the governate. I have no problem with the other information provided (the name in Arabic, location, etc.. - please find another way to include that info. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hussein and renovation
I am removing the following sentence from the article "Hussein intended to renovate the Jewish Quarter, but the plan became obsolete when Israel conquered the western part of Jerusalem in the Six Day War.[8]". The sentence is inappropriate for multiple reasons. First, it is simply incorrect - Israel captured the Western part of Jerusalem in 1948, not 1967. Second, it presents an opinion by a single journalist as fact. Third, it quite drasticly changes the meaning of what that journalist claims, through the ommission of a single word. The source claims the King planned to rennovate the Jewish Quarter as an ARAB quarter, but that key word was ommitted. Fourth, it is written in a POV way, which implies that Israel's conquest in 1967 is at fault for the quarter not being renovated, while not mentioning that the reason it needed renovation was that it was deliberately destroyed by the Jordanians themselves, and glossing over the fact that the King had nearly 20 years to renovate, if that was really his plan, before the Israeli conquest. But most importantly, I'm removing this as it has absolutely no relation to Shuafat. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Source (Bedein)


 * "Jordan had Arab renovation in mind for the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem at the time. Little did the Jordanian king realize that his 'Project Removal' to Shuafat would allow the IDF to enter an abandoned Jewish Quarter in 1967''."


 * deleted paraphrase
 * 'Hussein intended to renovate the Jewish Quarter, but the plan became obsolete when Israel conquered the western part of Jerusalem in the Six Day War'.


 * proper paraphrase.
 * Hussein had planned an Arab renovation of the now emptied Jewish Quarter. The plan became obsolete when Israel conquered the eastern part of Jerusalem in the Six Day War'.


 * You've made huge mountains out of a minuscule molehill, i.e. that in transcribing Bedein, the wiki editor (myself? perhaps?) made a slip and wrote 'western' for Bedein's 'eastern'. You are blaming the source for an editor's easily correctible slip.


 * Whatever the king's motives, which you speculate about, but which are not in the source, the passage is necessary and must be restored since it explains why those people came to Shuafat's refugee camp. Eliding this key sentence creates a mystery. Apart from eliminating Bedein as a source for the prior passage, which is straight from him, and, now without that note, looks like verbatimj plagiarism of an unacknowledged source. To do this is highly irresponsible Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (2) A reliable source for the removal of the Ashkelon squatters fromm the old Jewish quarter to Shuafat in 1966 is Meron Benvenisti, Ziad Abu-Zayed, Danny Rubinstein, The West Bank Handbook: A Political Lexicon, Westview Press, 1986 p.189
 * This could be put into the passage preceding the erased section.Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not huge mountains out of a minuscule molehill - I have removed a problematic sentence, and described 5 different ways in which it was problematic, of which, the mistake of writing "Western " for "Eastern" is but the most trivial. If you would like to re-insert the information, please make sure that the other 4 concerns I have raised are also addressed. If you are concerend about 'verbatimj plagiarism'[sic] - do not insert such plagiarism in the future. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon, but what is the point of wasting people's time with this gamesmanship, after having seriously disturbed the text, which required only one minuscule change 'eastern' for 'western' to dissolve the hyperactive qualms about imagined problems in the text prior to your deletion. As noted, I'm 'concerend' (sic) about an act of plagiarism that resulted because of a thoughtless deletion of the whole passage, with its crucial source note. Your reply therefore only adds confusion, since evidently you just didn’t do the necessary legwork. Once more, I'll have to do it for someone. Having to fight futile and badly motivated edits like this is one reason why serious people give up work on I/P articles in wiki. The effect of your edit was to elide important information, wreck the sourcing of the text, and give a strong Israeli POV tilt to the section.


 * The Text as I found it:-


 * "'After the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Shuafat was occupied by Jordan, which annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem until the 1967 Six-Day War. The Shuafat refugee camp was established in 1966 by King Hussein.[8]. In the aftermath of the Six Day war, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Israel. The town of Shuafat and the refugee camp were subsequently annexed by Israel into the municipal area of Jerusalem.[1][9] Residents of Shuafat were offered Israeli citizenship, but most refused it, considering themselves to be illegally occupied, though many accepted permanent residency status instead.[1]"


 * Hussein is mentioned as someone who built Shuafat refugee camp. There is no explanation or context as to why. We are referred by note to a source, David Bedein’s ‘Why is the Shuafat Refugee Camp Seething?’


 * That source says:-


 * "It would seem that some 5,500 Palestinian Arab refugees live in the Shuafat camp. 3,000 are children. They are descended from Arabs who in 1948 left what is now the Ashkelon region, and were initially settled in the hovels of the burnt out Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem, from where they were abruptly relocated by King Hussein to Shuafat in 1966. Jordan had Arab renovation in mind for the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem at the time. Little did the Jordanian king realize that his 'Project Removal' to Shuafat would allow the IDF to enter an abandoned Jewish Quarter in 1967."


 * I therefore added the following combined citation of source language and then paraphrase, of the part, most germane to explaining where those refugees came from, and why Hussein moved them.


 * "The Shuafat refugee camp was established in 1966 by King Hussein, to house Arab refugees originally from Ashkelon who had settled in the hovels of the burnt out Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Hussein intended to renovate the Jewish Quarter, but the plan became obsolete when Israel conquered the western part of Jerusalem in the Six Day War.[8]. In the aftermath of the Six Day war, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Israel."


 * There is no 'speculation' of King Hussein's motives in my edit, simply a stylistic change of 'Hussein' for 'Jordan'. What kings direct be done, in monarchical regimes, if one must gloss the self-evident, is what the countries do, as the 'USA decided' means, variously, the President or Congress. To insinuate I was speculating is thus wantonly provocative.


 * The first part, bolded, is verbatim from Bedein’s text. I kept his words to make sure that the force of those emotive words ‘hovels’ and ‘burnt out’, of significance to Jewish memory, was fully retained. The second part, italicized,  is my paraphrase, not verbatim, of Bedein’s remarks.


 * What did your edit do?


 * Instead of correcting the obvious lapsus calami of ‘western’, with the proper ‘eastern’, you seem to have used this slip as a pretext for eliding the whole passage, thus restoring to the original POV its inexplicable omission of the key words in Bedein’s text that explain why the refugees ended up in Shuafat, and what Hussein intended to do with the old Jewish Quarter, i.e. renovate it in Arab style.


 * Instead of correcting a slip by a fellow editor, you exploited the slip to restore a distinct POV (by silencing a crucial part of the Shuafat refugee story).


 * Thirdly, and most damagingly, in removing the text, 'Hussein intended to renovate the Jewish Quarter, but the plan became obsolete when Israel conquered the western part of Jerusalem in the Six Day War', .'
 * you removed the reference to Bedein, on which that whole text, including that which you left in, is based.


 * The result was the following.


 * "The Shuafat refugee camp was established in 1966 by King Hussein, to house Arab refugees originally from Ashkelon who had settled in the hovels of the burnt out Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. In the aftermath of the Six Day war, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Israel. The town of Shuafat and the refugee camp were subsequently annexed by Israel into the municipal area of Jerusalem."


 * As the text thus stood, monkeyed about in this careless way, the whole section I now bold, which comes from Bedein, lacks a footnote, and is now sourced to (a) Kershner, footnote 1, and an article by Amnon Meranda on Ynet (footnote 8).   Kershner nowhere speaks of what King Hussein did. Amnon Meranda’s article should not even be there since all it has to say about Shuafat is:


 * "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday questioned the annexation of Palestinian neighborhoods to the capital after the Six Day War. 'Was it necessary to determine that the Shuafat refugee camp, Arab el-Suwahara and Walaja were also part of Jerusalem?’".


 * Meranda’s article is about Rehavam Ze'evi, the man who pushed throughout his career for the immiseration of 3 million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to a point where despair would facilitate ‘transfer’ out of the West Bank and Gaza to ‘Arab’ countries. It leaves the reader puzzling why in studying Shuafat, he should be directed to parliamentary remarks commemorating the assassination of this member of the Knesset? ( POV games, stacking the text with redirects to ‘Palestinian terrorism’ when all one wants to know is how Palestinian refugees ended up in Shuafat?).


 * The use I made of of Bedein becomes ‘plagiarism’ (since the original acknowledgement of where the words came from has been erased). The sin of plagiarism, sir, does not mean using several words or phrases from a source. It means using those words from the source without acknowledgement. That is why your edit precipitated an issue of plagiarism, not present in my version, for it removed the source, Bedein, and left his remarks attributed to Kershner and Meranda, who say absolutely nothing like what is retained from Bedein's text.


 * Take more care to understand what you are editing before you jump in. Carelessness of this order only wastes time and looks obstructive. Articles are not built by running amuck to mess them up by deletions that replace clarity with obscurity, generating absurd threads because one refuses to read closely, and substituting precisely positioned relevant footnotes with others belonging to other texts or articles. Thank you.


 * For the record. No one has even troubled to correct the mistaken transcription of Isabel Kershner as Isabel Kerhsner. The source referring us to Rehavam Ze'evi is maliciously besides the point and should be immediately deleted for its irrelevance Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to get into a pedantic line-by-line argument with someone who assumes bad faith, and insults me personally. I've raised 5 issues with regards to that statement - if you wish to re-introduce that piece of information, make sure you do so in a manner that addresses all five issues. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What has WP:AGF to do with it? People make bad edits (I slipped up on 'western'). You made a very poor edit based on wild misprisions of several things, which I duly analysed. I showed you left the sourcing in disarray, and your grounds for removal were both spurious and POV-tilted. Now you refuse to reply, but insist once more I reply to several remarks that are based on your original misapprehensions. So you are in no position to offer advice, esp. since you are unwilling to to accept mine.
 * Anyone should feel free to restore the text you deleted, with its footnote to Bedeid,  with the slight variation I crafted (adding 'Arab' renovation, and correcting 'eastern' for 'western'), since nothing you have said since is germane to wiki criteria on NPOV and proper editorial practice. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jordanian annexation
The attempt at annexation of the west bank by Jordan is a fine legal nicety. The Israeli government position is that no annexation took place and the Jordan unilaterally incorporated the west bank into Jordanian territory. If those editors who wish to place that Jordan did annex the West Bank then they will be saying that the Geneva conventions apply to the West Bank. The Israeli government's position is that the Geneva conventions do not apply as the West Bank was not previously sovereign territory....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, whatever Israel or Jordan did or do historically, does not change the fact that under Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 'the law of occupation continues to apply even if the annexation was legally effective. Even if an occupant asserts a reasonable – albeit contested – claim for sovereignty, it is not allowed to use its effective control to have its claim prevail.’ Eyal Benvvenisti, The International Law of Occupation, Princeton UP, Princeton New Jersey 2004 p.113.


 * I don't know how often this has to be repeated. But Israel's unilateral actions, like Jordan's, do not constitute sovereign control or possession in international law, and therefore all towns and areas under Israel's post-1967 jurisdiction or occupation on the West Bank cannot be defined as being within Israel.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not up to Wikipedia to judge who does or doesn't own the town. Instead, if there is a dispute, we should dispassionately report on all significant POVs.  What are the significant POVs here?  What does Israel say? What does Jordan say? What does the UN say?  What are agreed-upon facts by all parties?  How about changing it to "is a village" instead of "is an Arab village" or "is a Palestinian village", and then later in the article more detail can be given about the various positions, with appropriate weight.  Possibly something like "is a village inhabited by Palestinians" or "is a village inhabited predominantly by Arabs", if those are facts that can be supported by reliable sources, might be the sorts of things we could say without contradicting any of the signifiant POVs in this situation. Surely all parties (e.g. Israel) would agree that the statement "is a village" is accurate. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig. I still don't understand why you fail to simply check either version against the source, Kershner. It's elementary. A line must reflect the source, and the source supports my edit, against that of the vandal. I do not expect the other two editors to move on this, but you have a record of some independence here, and I place the following for your reconsideration regarding the anonymous I/P tagteam edit in the lead I properly contested, but which none of you do. If you want the story behind why the edit I support is by far the more correct one, given the source in Kershner, see my page, slightly polemical, but I am rather disappointed that in so simple an edit, reasonable men cannot forego the temptation to do nothing, and allow an undefended travesty of a source to prevail over a precise construal of that source.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note (a) On Shuafat.


 * Anonymous I/P editor 24.62.27.63 restored an edit made three months earlier. Namely,


 * ‘Shuafat is an Arab town within the borders of Israel as part of north-eastern Jerusalem' here


 * (1)I reverted on the 16th of October back to
 * "'Shuafat is a Palestinian town within the de facto borders of Israel as part of north-eastern Jerusalem'."


 * My edit explained: 'reverted ideology’. Why? 7 experienced editors including strongly ‘pro-Israeli’ editors like User:Canadian Monkey, had found since July nothing wrong with the original edit by Ashleykennedy, which conformed to the reference note 1 to Kershner. (I’d noted way back that her name is misspelled, in the footnote directed to colleagues. While all are prepossessed by possible POVs, no one will change this, one more proof that POV hunting predominates over serious editing.) Kershner wrote:


 * "‘the latest such finds is a narrow strip of antiquity that runs down the middle of a main road through what is now Shuafat, a Palestinian neighborhood in north Jerusalem. . . . touching on one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the ownership of the city that the Israelis and Palestinians claim as their capital. . . The government expanded the city limits to take in outlying Palestinian villages like Shuafat, and annexed them. The Palestinians were offered Israeli citizenship, but considering themselves illegally occupied, most refused, choosing permanent residency . . most of the world do not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem and other areas occupied in the 1967 war.’"


 * The edit therefore ignored the source and was ideological. The reference supports Ashley Kennedy’s nuanced version ('Palestinian' 'de facto'), as several editors for thre months did not question. That 'Palestinian' for 'Arab' is by now the vox propria does not have to be argued on several hundred pages, repetitively. 'Arab' could be anyone from Saudi Arabia to Morocco. It has been also accepted that Israel never annexed that land, and that the borders (which are not in international law determined unilaterally) are provisory de facto borders. Many articles accept this.


 * (2) Within another half hour, my revert was reverted in turn by a new anonymous IP editor, and I immediately reverted it with the explanation ‘Undid.The border is not recognized. Hence de facto’


 * (3)Only on the third revert in what was now a tagteam operation by again 24.62.27.63 did I explain my revert back by remarking on vandalism, ‘Rv vandalism’.


 * (4) The anonymous IP editor 24.62.27.63 reverted my restoration back again the next day, and, after a half a day has passed without any other traditional editor intervening to restore the damage, I cancelled his revert, explaining the edit as ''Revert ideological vandalism'.


 * (5)Three days later his anonymous companion 64.119.142.118 restored the ideological POV-driven edit and, within an hour, I restored the consensual edit speaking of ''Rt vandalism of an ideological kind'.


 * (6) At this point, as Ashley Kennedy and I, both customary editors there, were editing, User:NoCal100 steps in to post a severe warning over my page on reverting the tagteamers’ abuse as ‘vandalism’. The tone of voice was that of an administrator, not of a mere editor like myself here. Several things were wrong. He was wikistalking. Secondly he warned me against edit-warring, without saying anything on the pages of the two anonymous I/P editors who were certainly edit-warring in a tagteam effort to restore a non-consensual and false statement that did not reflect the source. Third, I’d explained twice the reasons why the anonymous tagteam revert was false, the two editors did not reply but persisted. I therefore branded their combined effort ‘ideological vandalism’. Fourthly,  I'd spoken of vandalism thrice not four times. Fifth, he tried to make this out to be a content dispute by (a) ignoring that seven editors had never challenged AK’s edit for three months (b) ignoring that the source quoted for the controversial sentence supports AK’s edit, and does not support the tagteam anonymous IPs’ edit, Since he aimed his dart only at me, and had obviously ignored an examination of the content of Kershner’s note, this was further evidence that he had me in his sights, and not the need to write to that page to NPOV standards.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nwt807-01
I removed "﻿settlement in the area of Jerusalem after the city fell in 70 CE. The main indication that the settlement was a Jewish one is the assemblage of stone vessels found there. Such vessels, for food storage and serving, were only used by Jews because they were believed not to transmit impurity. Archaeologists believe stone basins discovered at the site were used to hold ashes from the destroyed Temple." because when it comes to archaeology using quotes from newspaper articles as references is inappropriate. One needs to use articles published in peer-reviewed journals or reputable published books; especially when the subject at hand is so contentious such as this one. Moreover, The two newspaper articles sited here even contradict one another. One says the dig director is Debbi Sklar-Parnes (Parnes is misspelled as Parnas in the newspaper article) and "While the settlement is believed to be Jewish, she added that she could not be certain since no remains of ritual baths were discovered." The other newspaper article says the dig director is Rachel Bar-Nathan and that "Several of the excavated private dwellings contained a mikvah, or Jewish ritual bath." Also, the text I inserted was inserted only after I made sure that the two censuses sited (the 1596 census and the 1931 census) do indeed state what I wrote. Nwt807-01 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Good evening, trusting Zero and Sean I reverted once more his edit but I don't understand why he is still allowed to roam free! Hope&amp;Act3! (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I left him a message.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw it and that's why I didn't initiate anything more 'stringent' like may be a warning to begin with? Have it your way, Hope&amp;Act3! (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
Hi, I tagged the statement that "The place was known to the Canaanites [...] as Dersophath, attributed to Palestine: A Guide by Mariam Shahin as needing more sourcing. The statement seems highly unlikely since excepting Phoenician and Hebrew, Canaanite language documents are almost nonexistent. Perhaps there is a better source for the claim? Aslbsl (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Muaska -> Shuafat camps
Two issues about these two camps. Zerotalk 12:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Some sources speak of "squatters" in Muaska camp. That is actually correct but one should get it straight: in addition to the refugees from multiple places who lived there, there were lots of other people living there too (Plascov says 2/3 in one time period and 1/2 in another).  This was one reason for the poor conditions and why the UN wanted to move the refugees somewhere else.  Only refugees were moved to Shuafat camp.
 * I believe it was 500 families and not 500 people who were moved to Shuafat camp, but I lost the source with that information. Can anyone help?  I have a figure of 4923 refugees in Muaska camp in 1954, which would slightly match 500 families if the families were large and not all of them were moved.

I rewrote the section based on Benvenisti and Paskov. These sources agree pretty well, though neither has the "500". Some comments on what I took out: I don't know what is to be cited to Beyond the Wall, Ir Amim Report, January 2007 and Doson, Nandita and Sabbah, Abdul Wahad (editors) Stories from our Mothers (2010), pp.18-19 that is not better served by the new sources. But I don't have Doson and Sabbah, so feel free to re-add it. The other thing I removed is "According to David Bedein, Jordan intended to renovate the Jewish Quarter, but the plan became obsolete in the wake of the Six Day War in 1967."  The source says "had in mind", much weaker than "intended", but anyway Benvenisti tells this story in more detail. In 1963 a Jordanian newspaper mentioned a suggestion by the municipality planning advisor to develop the Jewish Quarter. The Israeli government complained that it would be a violation of the Armistice agreement, then the Jordanian government denied that the newspaper report was correct. It could go in, but I thought it was not clearly on the subject of the article. Zerotalk 11:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Biblical times, + possible synagogue
User:Zero0000 and User:Nishidani: I see some rather questionable sources here, LaMar C. Berrett, for one. And has someone some updated information on the 1991 dig?

Also, when I use google-translate on Guerin, I get 150 inhabitants. However, Pringle have translated the same passage (from p. 395) as: ''This village, situated on an elevated plateau from which one can make out perfectly the cupolas and minarets of Jerusalem, counts 500 inhabitants. The houses are for the most part fairly old and vaulted internally.'' Is it google or is it Pringle who are wrong?? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Pringle slipped up.'Cent cinquante habitants' =150 denizens.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * LaMar Berrett is not RS, and in any case is only in the bibliography, so it can be removed instanter.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Pringle:0 Google: 1. Ok, I´ll remove Berrett, (he is in the article, but without page-number).  There are a few others, which I still have not pinned down: Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, The Cambridge History of Judaism: The late Roman-Rabbinic period, William David Davies, Louis Finkelstein, Steven T. Katz, The ancient synagogue from its origins to 200 A.D.: Anders Runesson, Donald D. Binder, Birger Olsson, (all without page-numbers: grrr) Huldra (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, this also shows how vital it is to go to the original source....Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I expanded two of the sources (including Runesson and "The ancient synagogue") about the alleged synagogue with quotations. Zerotalk 00:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol 4, p177, says "Although other sites have been suggested, the veracity of the identification of the ruins there as synagogues has been seriously questioned (for example, Jericho, northern Jerusalem, and Shuafat)." I took it out as the two specialist works are more specific and stronger.  But I don't mind. Zerotalk 00:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. The text should be changed to reflect later doubts. The same with the part based on the Haaretz and Kershner article: I don´t like archeology based on newspaper-sources and speculation, but if we have them, then at least we should include the doubts that are in the source. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Second Temple Period
I noted this section heading while reading the AN/1 report today. The section heading strikes me as inappropriate for two reasons.
 * The Second Temple Period is (a) far too vague and (b) not appropriate to this article since (b) the only evidence for the section consists of a skerrick of a discounted hypothesis linking one site in Shuafat to a synogogic structure.
 * There is a problem in using Second Temple for a chronology of this type for synagogues were attested abroad, not within Judea proper, for the periods we correlate with the Second Temple within Israelitic history.
 * Looking at History of Palestine and History of Israel, one may observe that there is a consensus to refer to the post biblical period in terms of dynastic reigns. Thus for the former we have: 1 Achaemenid Empire period Hellenic period; 2. Restoration of regional self-governance; 3 Roman Period, and for the latter: (1) Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule; 2 Hasmonean dynasty; (3)  Roman rule. probably the second either requires a renaming along the lines of 'Post-Biblical' or 'Pre-Roman'. Suggestions? Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I see you're back, Nishidani, from your self-imposed exile. Unfortunately, as one of your first new projects, you choose to clash with me. Again.
 * "Second Temple period" is very clearly defined, nl. "The Second Temple period in Jewish history lasted between 530 BCE and 70 CE", so #1 is BS. I don't understand #2. What you perceive as a consensus based on a whole of 2 (!) articles, is apparently not a consensus, as this article testifies!
 * Calling it the "Roman Era" was in either case in either case simply incorrect. I see no reason to prefer any alternative to the present formula, although I agree it does not matter much. I, however, have great problems with the POV attempts of editors to remove all mention of things Jewish from articles as much as possible. I think it is fitting that a section describing a building of Jewish origin (this is specifically mention even in the source that rejects it being a synagogue) should be name in reference to something Jewish. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw in the section below (why there?) the suggestion to use "Hellenistic period". That is a possibility, as it is a shorter period than the Second Temple period and is a name which is more used by academic sources. I would have no problem with that suggestion, but only if there would be some more input from editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish anti-Jewish/Israeli camp. I will post on WT:JUDAISM asking editors their for their valuable input. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate you striking out your remark above about 'editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish camp.' Contextually this says the two other editors here discussing this issue are in an 'anti-Jewish camp', i.e. their contributions are being read as motivated by anti-Semitic hostilities. Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say "anti-Semitic", I said "anti-Jewish", but for clarity I have added "anti-Jewish/Israeli". I also did not say that anybody here is motivated by "hostilities", rather I referred to a certain POV, that is editors who have over the years had difficulties to adhere to NPOV for reasons apparently rooted in their personal life and opinions. And I never said that I considered all other editors on this talkpage to be such, just part of them. Please do not distort my words and intentions. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Debresser. I am not on a short fuse, and am saying this quite calmly. You are disrupting discussions on the merits of content additions. You agreed, yesterday, to my request to erase what is a personal attack (See Antisemitism - the article uses 'anti-Jewish' with some good reason, as a synonym of anti-Semitic'). You have restored the term, adding a further personal insult (anti-Israeli). If you don't strike this out, then arbitration will be the result. Stop it, and focus on the technicalities of editing.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from remarking on other editors. As WP:NPA makes perfectly clear, Comment on content, not on the contributor.  nableezy  - 16:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Nishidani Your state of mind was never in question. Please also notice that I never mentioned you by name. You seem to have decided yourself that I must have meant you, among others. @Nableezy POV considerations must be taken into account when relevant. That is the obvious exclusion to the "Comment on content, not on the contributor" rule. But thank you for the reminder. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply "2nd century BCE" is also a valid option, although it makes more sense to characterize a period by a defining trait IMHO. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When I refer to earlier  eras, I normally follow Israel Finkelstein, from his Highlands of many cultures. I have listed them here : User:Huldra/Dauphin & Finkelstein & SWP. And he goes  Hellenistic ==> Roman, Huldra (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we have a fair consensus that the term we have can easily be changed for a chronological indicator. Let's narrow this down then. Do we need a section with just one hypothesis, or can we merely state that synagogue theory without a section header, adding at the end of 'Biblical' this material, with asn introductory phrase of the type,:'Regarding post-biblical times, evidence is scant, but one excavation turned up material initially believed to be a trace of a synagogue, datable to the. . ..?Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, everything before the Crusader era is based on archeology, ...except the Biblical identification. And the Biblical identification is speculative, to say the least. 2 of the sources are 19th century, and the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible only say that identification with Gebim is "uncertain." Yeah, I know people love to identify old Biblical places with present day places in Israel/Palestine, but identifying one place with three different places in the Bible is getting a bit ridiculous.....
 * So....what about under History, start with Possible Biblical Identification, then add a Archeology section after that? Huldra (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding a section on Archaeology would solve it. I read some time back that 200 odd sites were misnamed as being this or that biblical town, but was busy reading several articles on a completely different topic, and forgot where I read it.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll wait 24 hours, and if anyone hasn't protested, then I'll add under History, first Possible Biblical Identification, then  Archeology, then Crusader period,  Huldra (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the possible biblical identification should be in the archeology section, because it is the archeologists who make the speculations in this regards. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for you to strike out 'Jewish/Israeli camp' used in a context that obviously alludes to me (and Huldra). I'll file a report tomorrow if you don't. I said on coming back I would adhere to a depersonalized editing mode, and I expect interlocutors who expect that of me to adhere to the same principle. Thank you in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Debresser What the heck?? I didn't notice it before now, but it was me who brought up Hellenistic era, and you accuse me of being anti-Jewish?? If you don't retract that at once, I will report you tonight. There is a limit, Debresser, and you just crosses it, Huldra (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and about it being archeologists making the speculation about a Biblical place; I cannot see that in the article. There are three 19th century guys, and I would not  call any of them an archeologist. And I cannot see the sources for the third, i.e. Eerdmans dictionary, Huldra (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's sensible to let everyone sleep on these things overnight and reconsider. The advice goes back to Herodotus. Tomorrow is another day, and I suggest that one should not take serious steps in haste ('tonight') but give one's interlocutor time to measure his or her words. Debresser, think it over, a simple cross-out saves everyone time and exasperation, and the request is legitimate. Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If he had been first warned today, I would have agreed. But I see you warned him earlier. I don't see how I missed it, except that I try to keep a deaf ear (or rather: a blind eye) to all those personal  comments..... Huldra (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I called nobody anti-anything by name. All those who feel offended should really ask themselves why they decided to apply my words to themselves. That having said, I think it is really childish, all those editors here pretending they don't have a POV. Having a POV is perfectly legit. It is editing based on it that is problematic. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Huldra You suggested Hellenistic, and I said that is a worthy suggestion. Now where is the problem with that? Debresser (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Debresser, yes, I suggested Hellenistic, you said that the one suggesting that was anti-Jewish. Now, in my world, calling someone anti-Jewish, is the same as calling them racists. Being a racist is not the same as having a POV, or having any political opinion. I’m feeling I’m telling you that 2+2=4, why do I have the impression that you know this already? Huldra (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. All I said is I'd like broader input. I didn't mean you, or anybody else, specifically. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Second temple period is the correct term for this archaeological era in Judea and specifically around Jerusalem. While regional hegamon changed during this period, Jewish control on the governor and local level were pretty much continuous (with the exception of the period leading to Selucid loss of control - the Maccabean Revolt which led to actual Jewish independence (however brief in the full sense (becoming a client state etc.))). The Jewish control led to buildings and culture being more or less continuous - with the shifting regional (or arguably known world with Alexander) hegamon not asserting much cultural control. Thus actual buildings on the ground from these period exhibit a continuity, and are not really affected by wider world politics.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an assertion of a POV, ignoring the arguments in this thread. We are trying to establish a neutral wording. See below.Nishidani (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The arguments raised are POVish and IDONTLIKE, and not inline with accepted archaeological nomenclature. Specifically during the 2nd century BCE one has Ptolemaic, Seleucid, Maccabi revolt, and then Hasmonean rule - 4 different regional players - however local control or autnomy more or less remained the same - which is why in archaeological findings one usually refers to the general era and not archaeological era and not Ptolemaic/Seleucid/Maccabi revolt/Hasmonean as an amalgamation.Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * These are assertions, not policy-based arguments. I noted that in our overview articles, we give dynastic names. Wikipedia should be consistent. The excavation in question has a specific date early first century = late Hasmonean period. The purpose of discussion is to achieve a rationale compromise, satisfying everyone, and Steven's proposal does that. It's called collaborative editing.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The section now includes another find, which is called by its source "A Second Temple Period Tomb on the Shuafat Ridge, North Jerusalem". In view of this fact, it is now clear that the section header will have to stay as it is: Second Temple Period. Debresser (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

False edit summary
Debresser. Correct me if I am wrong. You changed the text sourced to Rachel Hachlili, writing.

The source does not say "no longer", just states a different opinion in your edit summary.


 * You preferred her to be paraphrased as saying:'Others do not consider the structure to have been a synagogue.'


 * Your edit summary is a falsification of the source and introduces a misleading idea.

"‘On identified the room as a synagogue, this claim is no longer accepted and the building complex is no longer identified as a synagogue..'"
 * Rachel Hachlili Ancient Synagogues - Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research,   BRILL, 2013 p.39 writes

i.e. she uses the words you deny she used twice. You read them, and then denied they existed in your edit summary to alter the substance of what was reported. This is a patent manipulation of a source.

After the denial Hachlili used the words I used, you altered the meaning. Her language summarizes the state of the art of archaeology (Current research) in 2008,19 years after the initial report. 'Others' is no substitute for 'is no longer accepted' which, in scholarly English flags that the thesis has been consensually and universally rejected by the competent community. So please revert yourself. She states exactly what I stated she said.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, cut down the rhetoric, please: "falsification", "patent manipulation". Go read WP:DRAMA, and be quiet for a while! By the way, did you notice I made another edit to that section afterwards, which resolves your objection? Debresser (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you if you noticed your first edit was a falsification, which it is, as shown above beyond dispute. Your second edit is no better: indeed it only worsens the situation. It is not 'strongly questioned or rejected'. What you even in your second edit persist in doing is removing the source-compliant words from Hachlilli, changing her view (2008) that On's interpretation is now rejected (the impersonal verb in English indicates a broadly or universally accepted viewpoint), as one of a number of opinions. In other words, I paraphrased her words closely. You rejected the close paraphrase, elided her point and transformed a scholarly consensus into 'some think this dubious, or some think that it is to be rejected'. This is making simple edits confusing. Please revert, and avoid personalizing differences by speaking of one's interlocutor as engaging in 'rhetoric' or WP:DRAMA'. Telling me to 'shut up' (be quite for a while' after a silence of 40 biblical days, is again, personalizing a difference of opinion somewhat aggressively. Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We are under no obligation to use the words of a source, when they can be summarized effectively and clearly in other words. Hachlilli rejects the synagogue theory, and that is precisely what the article now says. The article even says no longer, which you like so much, when using the word later (which was in the article even before I made my edits). There is no reason to change the concise and correct summary of the academic opinions as they are presently represented in article, and your suggestion to revert is preposterous. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the above. Hachlilli does not 'reject the synagogue theory'. She uses the impersonal English verb construction used in prose to state what is a scholarly consensus. She states the academic consensus dismisses an extraordinary claim made by just one Israeli archaeologist.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, Debresser, you are really looking for drama, aren't you? ANI? Over 2 ce? Where you even agreed with me on the RfC over at Talk:Lifta? For what it is worth: I misread, I thought the date under the "Second Temple Period" here read   "2nd century CE", it doesn't, it is "2nd century BCE". But "2nd century CE" is the Roman period, that, combined with the fact that the text mentioned that the structure is most likely not a synagogue made me combine 2 paragraphs to "Roman period". But presently it just looks silly:   all the text under "Second Temple Period"  basically saying that the structure from that period is not a synagogue...  As for name, what about "Antiquity"? Huldra (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Second Temple period extends into the Roman period. The archaeological structure in Shuafat uniquely claimed by On to be a synagogue is pre-Roman. No one, according to Hachlilli, writing in 2008, accepts that theory: it runs against the whole grain of the history of synagogues, which were quite alien to the Judean world (as opposed to Judaism's diasporic or Palestinian/Israeli peripheral world, throughout almost all of the Second Temple period. That is the issue, in a nutshell.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts were that if we are going to call it the Second Temple period, then we should have something relevant to it. Otherwise we should call it the Hellenistic period, Huldra (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur that Second Temple period is inappropriate. The problem is that a section supposedly covering saeveral hundreds years cannot contain just one thin, and deeply disputed, theory about one site. Either 'Post-Biblical' or 'Pre-Roman'.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Aesthetically, I would prefer to remove all the headings before the Crusader period...   I expect   dire consequences if I  tried to do so, though.....Huldra (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Drawing and quartering is such an ugly punishment ... why not replace "Second Temple Period" with ... "Second Century BCE"? Pretty unambiguous, and not really controversial. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, Steven (even though I have never been happy with the CE/BCE marker. It's still residually a Christocentric periodization of global history). Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't help that part. That's the de facto standard for dating, and people understand it. The only other real choice is always to use "xxx years ago", but then it doesn't stay current, and removes context. At least using CE/BCE it's only residually Christocentric rather than blatantly so. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

second temple period is the correct technical term for a site squarely in the middle of Judea and adjacent to Jerusalem (and in modern Jerusalem). If this is replaced with a date range, then all other history section headings should be as well, which is not what is usually done elsewhere. Erasing the Jewish history and Jewish periods from Judea articles is not construxtive and seems motivated by modern considerations and not the historical context.Icewhiz (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Second Temple period, as noted earlier, is not the '(correct) technical term'. It is the way that the Jewish traditional narrative of this history describes this time frame, but it is also frequent in the broader Israeli archaeological literature. This is perfectly acceptable as a national narrative and also in the specialist literature. The delicacy of these distinctions for an encyclopedia which, being global, is sensitive to POV nuance, is clear. Unfortunately, as several books document, presence implies claims to the land, and while it is a self-evident fact that a large part of the archaeology proves the obvious, the profound Judaic roots in this region, the 'contemporary' record thrums with a premise: 'Jewish roots' in an Arab area disinvalidate contemporary title ipso facto. At Archaeology of Israel, to illustrate, there is no mention of the Islamic period, though there is a substantial Israeli archaeological record of the outcome of excavations of Islamic sites.  By choosing a neutral term, one avoids these implications
 * However, as noted, our articles History of Israel and History of Palestine employ a chronology that determines periods in terms of dynastic reigns. These are neutral. (2) The Second Temple Period embraces 6 centuries, and is far too vague for classifying a single item that is dated to the early Ist century BCE, whose religious status (Second Temple is a term that has religious resonance) is now denied. (3) Specifically, sources give us 2 alternatives, Second Temple period (generic) or late Hasmonean period.
 * To insinuate that any attempt to use the secular neutral term is tantamount to 'erasing the Jewish history' of the area is inappropriate. You are, unfortunately reading into other editors' views a POV. Steven, for one, is above all suspicion in this regard, and his mediating suggestion is, as is in my experience invariably the case, informed and neutral.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Shuafat ridge
This article is about Shuafat.

Icewhiz, you added two items referring to ostensible archaeological finds in Shuafat. Both aappear to refer to archaeological work at the Israeli settlement of Ramat Shlomo, and thus are made by your edit to appear to refer to Shuafat itself by the equivocation present in the older name for Ramat Shlomo, namely Reches Shuafat (Shuafat Ridge). Could you clarify why this is relevant to Shuafat, rather than appropriate to the distinctly different site where these excavations took place?Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Shuafat Ridge is, as the name implies, directly adjacent to Shuafat (and people usually don't bury their dead or quarry stones inside their own villages, but rather outside nearby). The article already refers to "Shuafat Ridge" elsewhere - The Shuafat Ridge next to the township was declared a 'green zone' to stop Palestinians in Shuafat from building there, until the opportunity arose to unfreeze its status as a green area and open it up for a new Jewish neighbourhood, as Teddy Kollek openly admitted.[49]. These aren't totally separate areas - but adjacent ones - Shuafat ridge was, until recently, undeveloped land right next to Shuafat. In any event - the article should be consistent - if the adjacent land is expunged here it should be elsewhere as well.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Please answer the question. That the article mentions Ramat Shlomo is adjacent to Shuafat is no warrant for attributing to Shuafat archaeological finds in the former. As the green zoning shows, Shuafat is not allowed to extend to Shuafat Ridge. If you want that data somewhere, it goes itno the Ramat Shlomo article. Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is right next to Shuafat (as is evidenced by the name and any map), and part of the same ancient site. If former green zoning (By Kollek - in the previous century) of the ridge is relevant, then clearly other historical information is as well. Should we remove the green zoning sentence?Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't repeat your position. Please respond to what I argued. This has nothing to do with altering parts of the Shuafat article that mention contiguous neighbourhoods. This is about defining what relates to Shuafat.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I responded to you argument directly. I believe it is best to wait for a 3rd input. The article currently delved into Shuafat ridge as well as Shuafat refugee camp (which is distinct and walled off from Shuafat) - I believe adding this information was consistent with the current article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is procedurally inaccurate. While we were discussing the issue of one item re a putative Jewish site in the form erratically produced against the source by Debresser, you introduced 2 new items. Now I have not reverted Debresser. That is under discussion. But your passages may be reverted as muddling two distinct realities. The material you introduced does not apply to Shuafat as the Israeli authorities define it, but to Ramat Shlomo. Move it there.Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This article, in general, does not relate to Shuafat as defined by Israeli authorities (including various info, including info on the unrelated and quite distinct refugee camp, which is walled off and treated as a separate neighborhood). While you may revert this well sourced information on Shuafat ridge finds without violating 1RR - you may be in violation of other policies. The two of us are definitely in disagreement here - I suggest that instead of edit warring - we wait for a 3rd or 4th opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hang onh. I am trying not to behave as many act with regard to my edits. I.e. revert me and then say 'discuss.' I needed no permission to revert your additions, because they do not apply to Shuafat but to excavations in Ramat Shlomo. So I ask you. Why don't you add that information to the Ramat Shlomo article, where its appropriateness is obvious. Here is is manifestly out of place.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware this was your point (sometimes I do need things to be spelled out it would seem) - I edited Ramat Shlomo with this information. However this information is also relevant for the Shuafat article with its current scope.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No. It now had its proper place. I am waiting to find why material used for Ramat Shlomo must be reduplicated in this article. Either a site is in one, or the other. I know this area of the world has been described in terms of quantum physics but in a mundane encyclopedia one should not espouse concepts of bilocality.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a vast multitude of articles in Wikipedia which cover overlapping contemporary geographical areas as well as different temporal eras - e.g. New Amsterdam and New York City - and which contain repetitions of the same information. Ancient locations rarely fit "neatly" into modern ones unless wholly encompassed. In this case we have a grave site adjacent to the old settlement, which is clearly connected. The article itself also links the ridge to Shuafat elsewhere. I will also note that your argument would also apply (and with more merit) to all mentions of Shuafat refugee camp, which is clearly distinct and separate from the Shuafat neighborhood.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Useless analogies. If some 17th century slave cemetery is dug up on a site in Brooklyn, one doesn't add that to the Queens's article. Come on, this is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shuafat. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721134929/http://www.citypass.co.il/english/FirstLine4E.aspx to http://www.citypass.co.il/english/FirstLine4E.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613141427/http://www.citypass.co.il/english/FirstLine3bigmappE.htm to http://www.citypass.co.il/english/FirstLine3bigmappE.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204112412/http://israelbehindthenews.com/Oct-13-98.htm to http://israelbehindthenews.com/Oct-13-98.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Israeli citizenship
Although the source says that the residents of Shuafat were offered citizenship in 1967, I believe that is not true. I think that the truth is closer to what appears in this opinion piece by the director of Ir Amin:
 * "An urban legend has it that, upon the de facto annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, the State of Israel offered the city's Palestinian residents as a group Israeli citizenship and they rejected it. Though it's an interesting legend, there isn't a shred of truth to it. The state applied Israeli law, judicial powers and governance to East Jerusalem less than two weeks after it was conquered. And to the Palestinians who lived there, it conferred the status of permanent residency, which is still in effect today, more than 45 years after the annexation of East Jerusalem."

Something that needs remembering is that Israel was playing the double game of setting in concrete its capture of East Jerusalem while declaring to the UN and the rest of the world that it was not annexing EJ. A source that covers this period from the inside in great detail is Meron Benvenisti's 1975 book "Jerusalem: The Torn City" (different from his later book "City of Stone"). From 1967 to 1971, Benvenisti was Jerusalem Municipality Administrator of the Old City and East Jerusalem. I read it once looking hard for the alleged offer of citizenship and I'm pretty sure it is not there. What is true now (starting I'm not sure when) is that people with Jerusalem permanent residence can apply for Israeli citizenship and some fraction of them are successful. Zerotalk 00:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think some sources are confusing what happened in the Golan (in 1981) and E. Jerusalem. In Golan - residents were actively approached with citizenship offers. In E. Jerusalem I believe they had to apply (and they may apply - and actually are in increasing numbers). The current text is also incorrect in that it states that the residents "accepted" permanent resident status - they were given the status regardless of their acceptance of the matter or not.Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, not all were given RS, AFAIK, if they were not at home when Israel occupied the area, say, they were abroad for studies, then they were not given RS. Anyway, what about changing the sentence to: "The residents present were given permanent residency status, however, they considered the area to be illegally occupied by Israel."? Huldra (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * People who were abroad were not residents at therelevant time. The proposed snetence makes little sense - they were designated as PR in the rolls regardless of their opinions. Their opinions (and peer pressure/coercion due to said held opinions in thecommunity) are a possible cause for not applying for citizenship. In terms of PR - it was of no relevance. Note also that this opinion may have been held by most, but not all, so they would have to be qualified to most if left at all.Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, as for the first part: "People who were abroad were not residents at therelevant time" ...this is rubbish, and I think you know it. I am a resident of city X, even if I might be a tourist for some weeks in country Z  or Y. (This was just a trick used by Israel  to get as few Palestinians with the land as possible, irregardless of the moral or juridical rights.) As for the second part: I simply don't understand what you are saying, here. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They were not residing in the city at the time. Regarding the second - you need to qualify "they" to "most" as this was not a position held by all (e.g. some applied for citizenship), and as there is no connections between PR and personal opinions the use "however" is out of place - it should be a separate second sentence, if it is retained at all (why is public perception of Israel in Shuafat during 1967 more relevant than any other point in time (note - citizenship application was open throughout since then) and not UNDUE?).Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * if an Israeli Jew of Haifa goes abroad to the UK for some months or a year, does that mean he immediately is deprived of his residency status on the books for his own country? I already know the answer but I'd like to hear your opinion.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Israeli citizens actually try to lose resident status for tax reasons, and it can be done quickly if they do their paperwork right, however nothing prevents them from regaining resident status as their citizenship does not expire. Regarding EJ permenant residents, they do not lose their status if they leave for a year. The cutoff is around 7 IIRC. AS for circumstances in 1967, the obligations of an occupying power are different towards those residing and present in the area vs. those who are not.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Israel had no right to deny PR to residents of East Jerusalem, even if they where not present when Israel occupied the city. The same way Israel had no right to deny the return of the Palestinians they expelled/fled in 1948. Alas, as we know, having the right, and getting the right is not the same thing.
 * Anyway, all of this is pretty irrelevant here, as we are dealing with how to represent the information from the NYT article (and that article does not mention those who where not present in 1967.) Huldra (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I wish to edit this article but it is for some reason completely locked
I came to this article hoping to provide some edits into spelling, punctuation, and other basic copy editing. However I am completely unable to do so as this article is completely locked. All I am able to do is view the source but I am unable to make edits. Why? I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:ARBPIA and the edit notice at the top of the page - you need to be extended confirmed (500 edits, 30 days tenure). You may make edit requests however.Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not understand. I fulfill all criteria but this page is inappropriately edit locked for those of us who wish to make uncontroversial edits. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're free to suggest edits here. You've only made 25 edits. You need to make 500 normal edits. Please don't try to get there by making large numbers of trivial edits as the clock often gets reset when that happens. Doug Weller  talk 11:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have fulfilled the required criteria and, therefore, require access to this article. Please remove the block immediately. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal block, and you need 500 edits to fulfill the criteria. As a member of the WP:Arbitration Committee that enacted these sanctions I'm think I know what the criteria are. Doug Weller  talk 05:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been a member of Wikipedia for the required length of time. The number of edits are not nearly as important as the quality. Is Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit? It truly feels like editing is limited to a small group of elite only. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is clear that Wikipedia is actually not the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Instead hurdles and stumbling blocks are erected in order to maintain an artificial segregation between the elite and the peasants. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Chalcolithic: why shouldn't IAA press releases through good media not be accepted?
hi! Newspapers not accepted for archaeology, only books? I've never heard of such a thing, it's perfectly accepted practice all over WP!

It's all based on Ronit Lupu's work, she is an official archaeologist for the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), they made a "press release" and it was carried by serious press agencies such as Agence France-Presse and Associated Press, and that's absolutely quotable. Please mind that Lupu is often misspelled as Lupo.

If these sources look more reliable to you, go ahead: Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * on an Omicron Technology website
 * for the Agence France-Presse source
 * for the Associated Press
 * for Deutsche Welle


 * although my deletion wasn't a revert, I'll leave the material in for a while.


 * There are two issues, both related. One paragraph was sourced to a journalist. That seems clearly unsatisfactory for archaeology.


 * The other is the use of the media as a source, even when quoting archaeologists. This is a bit trickier at times. There are the usual issues, ie are the archaeologists being quoted correctly and fully, etc. There can obviously be political issues, archaeology can be used as a political tool, the most striking examples probably being not in this arena but in Indian politics where the Hinduvata nationalist movement is using archaeology to change India's history.


 * Then there's using something that hasn't been subject to any critique by other archeologists. Not really a good idea normally in my opinion. We can end up putting something in an article that's quickly refuted, for instance the dating.


 * The major problem however is that this discovery doesn't seem to have been discussed anywhere after the first news reports. Nothing in Google Scholar, nothing in Google after Dec 1 2016, a few months after the report. So we have no literature backing it up. Doug Weller  talk 17:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)   reping as the first one might not have worked.  Doug Weller  talk 17:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

- I know exactly what you mean, this piece of news was used to change the much more debated Jerusalem article and now that city, not Shuafat, is declared by many to be 7ky old. I worked hard to refute it. We need this here for WP users who get confused by the argument over there.

Also, the Chalcolithic is a non-contentious period as Middle Eastern archaeology goes. Nobody really loves it and claims it for themselves - it predates Abraham :) So, I'm not all that surprised that it's been quiet around the subject. I don't necessarily expect a quick publication either, apart from Atiqot or Hadashot Arkheologiyot, and yes, I am surprised it doesn't show up there. Maybe it does only in Hebrew, I don't know. But the Chalcolithic is such a singular culture, I don't think anyone got it wrong.

The Bronze Age thing, on the other hand, is unsupported for all I can tell.

Cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Controversial or not, I agree with Doug, this needs a better source if it's to stay. The articles you list above are all variants of the same press release. Per WP:NEWSORG, press releases and the associated churnalism are not reliable sources for science, even if they ostensibly come from experts. There is also a longstanding consensus amongst archaeology editors that news and pop sci reporting is especially poor when it comes to archaeology.
 * So what we need are scholarly sources, preferably peer-reviewed, preferably secondary. If there are none two years after this discovery was made, it could be because they are being slow to publish, or it could be because their original interpretation was wrong and it turned out to be something else. In the absence of good sources, we can't and shouldn't say. It doesn't hurt to be a little conservative on this. If the discovery was real, it will eventually be published and we can include it.
 * The mention should be removed from Jerusalem too, even moreso. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * IAA usually publishes it's own press releases too, but I can't find this one at the moment. Maybe it is only in Hebrew. It would be better than something filtered through a news outlet. After more consideration of the finds, which can take a few years, scientific editions are published at www.hadashot-esi.org.il.  For example, here is a 2017 report on a 2015 excavation close to Shuafat. Again, I don't see this one but I didn't look very hard either. They use the spelling "Shu'fat". Zerotalk 03:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I just looked, found nothing using several versions of this search. It was billed as such a sensational find it's hard to understand why there was no followup report. It's existence in the Jerusalem article is a serious problem IMHO. Doug Weller  talk 07:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is really close to Jerusalem (which itself "moved" a bit between incarnations) - saying this was in the area should be OK (Shuafat itself appeared much later than Jerusalem - even if one takes the biblical association to a small village) - as we have sources doing so. I did search, in Hebrew, in Hadashot Archiologyot yesterday - I was not able to find a report on this find. I was able to find many other rescue digs in Shuafat, including digs for road-21 - it seems to me, at least for Shuafat, that the dig reports get published 3-4 years after the dig. The press release was probably based on preliminary findings of the dig (which were interesting) - but that probably doesn't rush too much the publication of an organized report.Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it seems nobody can find adequate sources, so I will go ahead and reinstate Doug's edits. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Folks, the big issue is 1) that users are looking up the info, and b) Jerusalem! No surprise nobody dared touch it there. They bite :) Why not be really "conservative", leave it in, and add a note of caution ("no follow-up in the academic media since the 2016 IAA press release")? Now as we have it it's a hurried mess, in my humble opinion. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: if we started eliminating all archaeological info on Middle Eastern sites coming from press releases and antiquated sources, we'd soon be down to half of what we have. Arminden (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * And our articles would be all the better for it. We can't say anything about no followup, that would be OR. Doug Weller  talk 15:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2019
add: Category:Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem Architau (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Same here. ✅ Debresser (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a duplicate cat.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)