Talk:Taybeh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Palestine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


christian - muslims[edit]

problems and issues happens all the time and every where, even within the very same family. I think that its not appropriate to mention any of these issues and give a bad reputation about taybeh and Palestine since it just happened only ONCE long time ago, and everything has been SOLVED now and back to normal.--213.6.11.49 (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it gives a bad reputation to anyone, exactly because conflicts happen all the time and everywhere. The inclusion of this matter is a question of it's notability. If we exclude it, we'd better do it for right reason. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


there is NO reason for mentioning it at ALL! if every problem happens has to be reported on wikipedia, then we should change the name from wikipedia to policedia!

this issue happened ONLY ONCE.... long time AGO, and everything is back to normal NOW, so there is NO reason to mention it at all. it's something from the past and the people of taybeh and others do not want it on their page.--213.6.11.49 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

i do not see why it has to be mentioned? --213.6.11.49 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was apparently a notable event, mentioned by reliable independent sources. Wikipedia is not in the business of whitewashing history. And Wikipedia does not care at all what the residents want. Wikipedia is built on verifiable statements, not just the "good news" and not just how things are "now". DMacks (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


it was a one time event that happened long time ago, there is no need to mention it now. it sounds stupid to mention every problem happens between residents on wikipedia! --213.6.11.49 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

i still do not find any reason to post this issue on wikipedia; it is not related! wikipedia is NOT a website for police reports. this problem happened ONLY once long time ago. I do not think that we should report every problem happens in any city online, its ridiculous! it MUST be deleted--213.6.11.49 (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL! In that case all events that happened ONLY ONCE A LONG TIME AGO should be deleted from Wikipedia. If you don't like how Wikipedia works, don't use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.30.180 (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

All Christian Village[edit]

i reinstated the edit about taybeh being the "only all christian village" as it is supported by the reference given and a number of other references found on google. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'll reword it a bit. If you can find more solid source - please add a reference. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
More lurking brings me to a conclusion that Taybeh is not the only all-christian village in Palestine. Others are: Beit Sahour with 80% Christian majority and Fassouta (or Fasuta) [1],[2] which seems to be all christian. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


neither Beit Sahour nor fassouta are 100% Christian places! yes they have a christian majority but not 100%!

taybeh is the only one left in Palestine to be 100% Christian village--213.6.11.49 (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess we are going to need a WP:RS reference backing this information. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

just a little search on google will prove you wrong again and again; and if you have any problem with the 100% Christian village left in Palestine, maybe its your duty to prove this wrong, instead adding what you like and deleting what you dont like!--213.6.11.49 (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've searched and found none. Even Taybeh municipality site says nothing about 100%. It says "the last Holy Land Christian enclave for whom the Church has played a pivotal role". --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


maybe you should do a better job at searching--213.6.11.49 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please try to follow civility rules. Regarding the sources: none of the links you added is working. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


check them out now and let me know if they still dont work. thx--213.6.11.49 (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The links are working now, but I seriously doubt that the church site, the children's books author and the article about beer factory are reliable sources according to WP:RS. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

so now you are doubting the sources? why would the church promote a lie? why would a christian author and a resident and a wife of the mayor of taybeh lie? why would an internationally recognized and credible organization such as the HCEF lie?

you can keep on googling the issue, and you will even find hundreds of other sources--213.6.11.49 (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

i did read it and found nothing wrong in the sources, especially because many of them are used all over this page and over pages! especially because the sources are the official website of a church, a municipality, a credible international organization and a credible newspaper and others --213.6.11.49 (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The last source you've added ([3]) contradicts your claim. Please read carefully:
  • You: the only 100% Christian village left in Palestine
  • Source: last all-Christian village in the West Bank ... is entirely Christian - apart from the Muslim pharmacist
--ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

i do not see how that is contradicting? where is the contradiction?--213.6.11.49 (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess we shall choose more careful wording, people are moving in and out, marry, change beliefs, etc.. 100% claim is just too strong. Also, can you tell West Bank from Palestine and 100% from 100% minus pharmacist? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

since Taybeh is a 100% Christian village, so all people who move in or out or marry are Christian only; changing belief is not common here, and it never ever happened in the history of Taybeh; and the 100% is from the sources not from me--213.6.11.49 (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

and if you read the rest of the sentence, you will find out that the Muslim pharmacist does NOT live in the Taybeh "But Taybeh is here, the last all-Christian village in the West Bank. The mayor, David (Daoud, originally ) Khoury, owner of the local brewery, returned here from Boston and takes pride in the fact that his village is entirely Christian - apart from the Muslim pharmacist who is married to a Russian woman. His pharmacy may be in the village, but he lives outside it."--213.6.11.49 (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

100%, never ever in the history are WP:PEA --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ALL and ENTIRE is not the same as 100%?

stop deleting sources and references to promote your bias and propaganda!--213.6.11.49 (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaving this link to incident noticeboard here to inform other editors about additional aspects of the matter, for the IP user shows no intension to engage in constructive dispute resolution. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ur negative and biased role is not appreciated at all--213.6.11.49 (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

if u just have personal attacking to say then it does not belong here. WP:NPA. if u have some real policy base argument to contribute to wikipedia then that is what talk page is for. otherwise stop your disruption. LibiBamizrach (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
His disruption has been stopped for a(nother) week. DMacks (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear all. Please consider that Taybeh is not 100% Christian anymore. There are over a dozen Muslim families living in Taybeh, in addition to several businesses owned by Muslims in Taybeh such as the town's Pharmacy, Bakery, 2 furniture stores, a wholesale supermarket supply company, a furniture upholstery shop, and 2 markets that sell fruits and vegetables. Additionally, the Taybeh schools have several muslim teachers, the 2 health clinics employ muslim nurses and doctors. So as you see, Taybeh is not 100% Christian anymore. There is no mosque in Taybeh, so the Muslims of Taybeh go to nearby Deir Jreir or Ramun to pray on Fridays. Additionally, most of Taybeh's muslim population are from Hebron, Nablus or Jenin, with a few from nearby Jericho. I know because I am a life-long resident/citizen of Taybeh. RamiHani 11:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Location[edit]

Let's start in 1964, when the area was under Jordanian rule. Jordan had no legal claim to the land, and still:

"THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER" (Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni), Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

The Arabs there, who had never ever controlled the area, officially gave up all sovereign claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanlan lanwan (talkcontribs) 15:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That is simply not true. The PLO said it did not exercise "territorial sovereignty", they did not "give up" any "claims". Jordan at the time was considered "trustee occupant" by the Arab League. Its attempted annexation of the territory was not accepted by any state except for the UK and the Arab League explicitly denied that action had any legitimacy. Jordan has since ceded any claims on the West Bank to the PLO. The territory is recognized as occupied Palestinian territory by nearly the entire world. Israel does not even claim that this is in Israel. nableezy - 15:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This is great, but let's first define the problem we are going to solve. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This user has been changing "West Bank" to "Judea and Samaria". Based on the other edits and what I can decipher from the above argument it appears as though they wish to claim this village as being in Israel and to use Israeli-preferred terminology. nableezy - 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Please also note this small talk. However I'd like Lanlan to formulate the problem first, and then present the arguments. Hopefully, this way we can proceed without using telepathy. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Information the article is missing[edit]

I think an information about the emigration from Taybeh and about US Taybeh diaspora has to be added. Thoughts, links, etc. will be appreciated.
Also, the copyvio about Taybeh churches has been recently removed, it's worth addition also. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


do you any of those links?--213.6.36.81 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

dubious tag[edit]

As the tag itself specifies, it is meant to reference some discussion of the material. What do you challenge Gilabrand? That Taybeh is all-Christian or that it is that last such village in the West Bank? The Levy piece says last all-Christian village in the West Bank, the Time piece says With just 2,000 residents, Taybeh is the last remaining all-Christian village in the Holy Land. Is there a reason we should doubt those two sources? Regarding the undue weight tag, I agree, and Ill look at working on that later if you, or someone else, dont get to it first. nableezy - 05:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

brewery and those darned Moslems[edit]

The article contains the following: The operation of the brewery is opposed by Muslim extremists. The mayor's car has been torched and his property vandalized. This is cited to this op-ed by a comedian. As far as I recall, an op-ed by a comedian is not a suitable source for claiming what Muslim extremists do, and an actually reliable source is needed for the sentence. Please provide one or I will be removing the claim. nableezy - 16:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And now this source has been added to support the sentence. The problem is that the source does not in any way do so. It does not say that mayor's car or property had been vandalized, it does not say that the brewery is opposed by Muslim extremists. It says that a dozen homes in Taybeh were torched following an alleged relationship between a Christian man from Taybeh and a Muslim woman from Deir Jarir. It also says This is not so much a battle between Christian and Muslim as one between Palestinian officialdom and tribal justice. To be blunt, somebody who claims that this source supports what is cited to it is lying about the source. nableezy - 17:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
In fact, the story is already covered in the article, under the heading Religious conflict. I going to remove this source distortion as it is quite simply nonsense that somebody could claim that it supports the cited sentence. nableezy - 17:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

gatestone inst[edit]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gatestone_Institute_and_Taybeh nableezy - 03:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the source as it's clearly one of those Islamophobic publications. There's really no defense for its inclusion in the article particularly in this situation where it's trying to paint a picture of Muslim-Christian hostility in Taybeh. Find a reliable source which states that Taybeh is surrounded by "hostile" Muslims and the reason residents are leaving is because of this hostility, not a fringe source whose apparent purpose is to besmirch Muslims. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

1185 mess-up by Pringle?[edit]

Earlier, the page said:


However, Pringle, 1998, p. 339, writes:

  • In 1185, the castle was granted by the child king Baldwin V to his grandfather William III of Montferrat, who had set out for Outremer on hearing of his grand- son’s accession (Eracles, xxn, 10 (RHC Occ, ii, 14-15); Ernoul (ed. de Mas Latrie, pp. 125 -6); Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, x (ed. Morgan, 24-5)).


...firstly, the grandfather Baldwin V of was William V, Marquess of Montferrat. And the source that I can see (RHC Occ, ii, pp. 14 -15), clearly mentions a Boniface, presumably Boniface I, Marquess of Montferrat(?), the uncle of the king. Which was in the article earlier.

Any way, it is clear that Pringle messed up here, somewhere. Huldra (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Also see p120-1 of Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement. At first sight it seems to agree with Pringle. Zerotalk 00:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
To me it looks as if Ellenblum has mostly copied Pringle. And if Pringle didn´t mess it up, then so did Wikipedia. Presently, William V, Marquess of Montferrat is the grandfather of Baldwin V: that can change, of course! However, William III of Montferrat seem far too old, me thinks, to be the grandfather of Baldwin V. Huldra (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The third ref he gives should be somewhere in RHC.occ. vol 2, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I see what's going on here...the RHC book (Eracles) and the one edited by Mas Latrie (Ernoul) are actually different manuscript families of the same work, which at this point of the text is actually an Old French translation of the Latin chronicle of William of Tyre. Actually at this point they are continuations, because William's chronicle stops in 1184. Mas Latrie notes in his edition that Boniface is an error in the original manuscripts (i.e. presumably made by the author of whatever manuscripts these two works were based on). Boniface was Baldwin V's uncle, but I don't think he ever had anything to do with the Kingdom of Jerusalem; he did, of course, participate in the Fourth Crusade 15 years later, but he was never in the east in 1185. I guess it's possible that the castle was granted to Boniface, but that doesn't make much sense. We do otherwise know that William V was present in the kingdom, so that makes more sense. Eracles and Ernoul were written later in the thirteenth century, maybe when Boniface was more famous than the other members of his family? I'm not sure why Boniface is named there, but in any case it can't be right. There is probably also some confusion about the numbering of the marquesses of Montferrat, but based on the titles of the Wikipedia articles, William V, Marquess of Montferrat is the father of William of Montferrat, Count of Jaffa and Ascalon, and grandfather of Baldwin V. The one we call William III is far earlier than this, but Pringle isn't the only one to call this guy William III. A few other modern historians of the crusades call him that too, for whatever reason. But in this case it means Wikipedia's William V. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Adam Bishop: Thank you very much for this, I greatly appreciate it. I can see that both the original sources named the beneficiary of the 1185 grant for the aieul or ayols of the king, my google-French understands that to be "grandfather". It is really most confusing when the same person is referred to under different names. And "A village called Taybeh" apparently got it wrong, as they write the grant was to Boniface de Montferrat. Huldra (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup, that can mean grandfather (or any ancestor, but in this case grandfather). By the way, earlier in the text, "Ernoul" makes the same mistake - see p 48, which mentions William Longespee (i.e. the future count of Jaffa and father of Baldwin IV), and names his father as Boniface. Of course, we know his father was actually William V (or William III), and his brother was Boniface. So that explains why it says Boniface again later. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
So, all in all, this really wasn´t (necessarily) a mess-up by Pringle, at all. It just reflected an 800 hundred year mess-up between William III and William V, and sometimes Boniface. I´ll leave the article as it is, in other words.
Aaaand, as a "thank you" for a job well done: a new job!
Would you care to take a look at Talk:Nisf Jubeil? We even had that as a DYK back in 2012, with a handle to its Crusader history. Alas, the curse of these places is that many have the same name. There is a Khirbet Nus Jbeil, now counted under Far'un, which I actually think/suspect that the source referred to. Nishidani has promised to look at it, but he gets distracted... Would you care to take a look? Clermont-Ganneau has some nice maps, which "fits" with the SWP maps, linked on the pages now, Huldra (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take a look at that too, but it might take a few weeks...I also tend to get distracted :) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)