Talk:Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

@Huldra: what do you think of the map I added, specifically:

  • its placement in the infobox?
  • the caption?
  • the fact that it is not cropped, but shows the wider area at a 1:20,000 scale?

I would quite like to agree a template style that could be used consistently across all of these articles about pre-1948 localities that no longer exist. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: I love the map! ..but it is perhaps a bit big? Is it possible to only show part of the map here, while getting the whole map (including text, below) when we click at it? Presently the map-addition makes the References-section in 1 column (at least for my 13inch laptop) and that is not as "readable" as the (former) 2-columns references. (And I suspect that will be the case for many, many of these -48 villages.)
An alternative: Could we possibly place it at the left-hand side, just under ===British Mandate era===? (Yeah, I know: that "breaks" the format that all pictures should be on the right, but that notion is often broken, in any case)
@Al Ameer son: for more opinions,
The caption is fine, IMO, except the "1:20,000" is perhaps too detailed? (We get that info when we click at the map) Huldra (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Huldra: see right for an image which shows only part of the map, while getting the whole map when we click on it.
Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to do that in an infobox.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Ok, but that would be an option if we had it under "British Mandate era" paragraph? Huldra (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, yes certainly.
FYI I have reduced the width of the infobox map to fix your first point above.
The problem I am trying to solve is how to provide appropriate context in the map image whilst also making the specific village easily visible. For example the SoP maps added to a number of other articles - e.g. Dimra - don't tell the average reader very much other than showing some red blobs. Even someone reasonably familiar with the geography of Palestine will struggle to work out where Dimra really was from the 1:20,000 map snippet, and the 1:250,000 snippet shows just a dot. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I have asked the people at Palestine Open Maps if we can put their full stitched-together 1:20,000 map on commons. Then we can zoom into that one on all pages, rather than the individual segment maps. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find the 1931 map of Dimra pretty clear; what is Dimra is immediately clear -to me, at least(!). On the 1945 map, though, it would be nice to have a circle round Dimra, even I had to look for a while before I found it ;P. Same for your 1945 map: a circle would be nice! (But in some other colour than red). If that could link to the stitched-together map: great! (though it might be a lot to load(?))
Also, with the latest changes on this article: are you suggesting that we should have the map 2 places in the article? Isn't that a bit much? Huldra (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nice trick of showing only a portion of a map in the thumb but the whole map on clicking would probably interest many other projects. Perhaps we should try to get it into the infobox options rather than implementing a less satisfactory procedure. Zerotalk 02:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And it would of course be of interest to each and every -48 village, Huldra (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Huldra: To editor Onceinawhile: See Template talk:Infobox settlement#expand utility of image map argument. Zerotalk 05:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great solution. And is so quick to do using Commons:CropTool. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! very nice! Huldra (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kuweiyis shrine[edit]

I’ve been looking for more information on the maqam. So far all I’ve found is a description in an archaeological report published by the IAA[1]: "Sheikh's grave on edge of scarp, near spring. Pottery: Crus[ader]/Mam[luk]; Ott[oman]". Will incorporate this basic description but first, is there any source that mentions the maqam in association with the village? —Al Ameer (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC) There’s also this but doubt it would be considered an RS. Al Ameer (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this:
  • Grootkerk, Salomon E. (2000). Ancient sites in Galilee: a toponymic gazetteer (Illustrated ed.). BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-11535-4. (p. 114, #51)
  • Palestine index Gazetter (1948) p. 158: tm, (<-tomb) 195261,(<-grid) 3 (<- map)
I have also notified User:Orest2000, as they have taken the pictures here: User:Orest2000/Palestinian_maqams#Maqam_sheikh_Kuweiyis, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see that Orest2000 hasn't edited since Dec. 2019, we should perhaps not hold our breaths, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Zochrot and the pal.rem site have pictures of the maqam for their entries of this village, but possibly we should go with the 1596 data for a hook? (Unless we can find more info about it), Huldra (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: I hope we could find more information from RS connecting the village and the maqam. Otherwise, I think a better DYK hook than the 1596 tax and population info would be "that the name of the former Palestinian village al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta may have been a tribute to Sultan al-Zahir Baybars?" Al Ameer (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: : the Baibars-association is fine, IMO, Huldra (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
19-26-Safad-1942 (Edh Dhahriya et Tahta land area)
@Huldra: Just nominated it. And thanks for delineating the village lands and showing the shrine within them Oncenawhile. I’m with Huldra here, these maps should be added to all the depopulated villages where applicable. Al Ameer (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This wider map extract shows the connection very clearly – the shrine is within the “land area” of the village shown by the large capital letters next to the shrine. It is 6km away from the built up area though, not 1km as currently stated in our caption.
Onceinawhile (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a big blue line along the dotted "village boundary" in the map to the right. I will make this the lead image. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Onceinawhile: very nice! thanks! (And I removed the 1km info; now it is just stated that it is SSW of the village site, ) Huldra (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem; now we only need similar maps in all the other -48-villages ;) Huldra (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Ruins of a shrine on the former lands of al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta
Ruins of a shrine on the former lands of al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta

5x expanded by Huldra (talk) and Onceinawhile (talk). Nominated by Al Ameer son (talk) at 00:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Long enough, new enough, within policy regarding references and neutrality, no copyvio found. Suggestion: I think lead is expected to contain more information to summarize the article, e.g. the village's origin, notable events, and probably some more context about its depopulation. The history of the maqam pictured in the infobox could be added to the article body. Hook is supported in article and cited. The image has an appropriate license, but how do the citations (lists of place name) support the assertion that the ruin is in "the former lands of al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta"? HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review HaEr48, very sorry it slipped under the radar. As for the shrine ruin, it is located within the village lands per the village boundaries. I'm not sure if we ended up finding a source explicitly stating as much in text though. @Oncenawhile:, @Huldra:? The shrine is not mentioned in the hook so worst-case scenario we may have to drop the image, unfortunately. Al Ameer (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(You will find Edh Dhahiriya et Tatha in the ourskirts of Safad, SW of the city centre). Esh Sh. Kuweiyis is SW of Edh Dhahiriya et Tatha, marked with the sign for "Sheikh's Tomb" (See the bottom of the map for that sign). Then note the .__.__.__. line, which is the defined village boundary (while . . . .is undefined boundary) clearly goes around both Esh Sh. Kuweiyis and Edh Dhahiriya et Tatha. (The boundary is defined most of the way, except between Edh Dhahiriya et Tatha and Safad, ie the opposite side of Esh Sh. Kuweiyis). Hope this helps? Huldra (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Al Ameer son, I'm waiting for the incorporation of the source above to the article (or the dropping of the image), as well as updates to the lead as mentioned in my initial review. HaEr48 (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the QPQ credit? It is been over five weeks since this was nominated, and still no QPQ? Flibirigit (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Evrik: thank you, and thanks for your edits to the article. I have also added a caption to the map [2] to incorporate Huldra's explanation, per HaEr48's request above. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the QPQ evrik ;) @HaEr48: I wrote up a lead summarizing the article as it currently stands the best I could. Regrettably, I do not believe any of us have more information about its origins, notable events or details about it depopulation and aftermath. Al Ameer (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
good to go now. HaEr48 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional map overlaid with modern OpenStreetMap streets[edit]

@Huldra, Al Ameer son, and Zero0000: I have added another map to this article, taken from PalestineOpenMaps (the founders have confirmed ok by email, which I have passed on to OTRS).

I have added similar maps to:

Any comments on these appreciated, as there is scope to spread these more widely.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! I would suggest that we wikilink conurbations (that was an unknown word for me!), Huldra (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: thanks for this - I think I am using the word wrong - I have changed it to "urban areas". Onceinawhile (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Onceinawhile: To editor Huldra: While it is an excellent idea, I find these overlays very hard to read. The grey colour gets lost in the visual noise of the older map. Overall it looks messy and (sorry!) ugly. Have you tried adding just the modern locality names rather than the roads? Zerotalk 01:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero0000, I think the Palestine Open Maps team are open to feedback, so I will pass this on. I don’t disagree, although I am not sure what the solution is. If only the locality names were added it would be much harder to figure out exactly where something is, which is the whole point in my mind. To be fair to POM, their system works very well on their website, where the overlay can be toggled on-and-off at will, which allows you to avoid getting lost in the noise.
Having said which, there is clearly value in having a system which will work in static form. Would a different color help for the roads? Maybe blue? Onceinawhile (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Written before your last edit.) @Onceinawhile:, an improvement would be a bluish color, since blue is the only color (almost) missing from the base map. Of course it shouldn't be so blue as to look like a waterway. I tried it, but it is still hard to navigate without the ability to flick the overlay on and off. Inside the built-up areas, it is impossible. It is also impossible to tell whether or not a road on the base map is still present; there are examples both ways on this map. The essential problem of course is that the base map is chock-a-block with detail. Zerotalk 06:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toggle test[edit]

Would it be better if we can replicate the toggle functionality here? See e.g. below (it’s not perfect yet, just a test). Onceinawhile (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It jumps around a lot, so not perfect yet ;). Zerotalk
@Zero0000: I have fixed it - what do you think now? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff below[edit]

El'ad 2020 street map overlaid on Survey of Palestine map from 1941

I'm adding this text below the image to see what difference it makes. Zerotalk 09:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Onceinawhile: When I click on the arrows for the first time, the page scrolls down until about 20% of the image is off the bottom of the screen. This happens on Mac both in Safari and Firefox, both in the laptop screen and an external monitor. Any ideas? Zerotalk 09:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Zero0000: I have the same problem. It is very annoying. How about this version on the right? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: That works, but it raises another possibility. If the flipping is automatic, why not use a 1940s map and a modern map (not overlaid but displayed separately)? It could even have more than two steps if we have more maps. Zerotalk 09:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero0000, see to the right (I have uploaded a new version). Is this what you had in mind? (again it is not intended to be perfect; I am conscious the third image does not overlap exactly). Onceinawhile (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile Hi, I suggest without the overlay step. I think flipping between the oldest and newest would be a nice then&now demonstration, and having them flip directly from one to the other would allow accurate matching of features. Zerotalk 10:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I think the automatic switching between two maps is very distracting.
What if we had a way to switch between the different maps, say like Yehud: there you can switch between "Show map of Central Israel", "Show map of Israel" "Show all".
If we could have similar choice between eg "show 1931 map", "show 1942 Survey of Palestine", "show street map (2020)", etc, it would be great, Huldra (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aligned maps with buttons to click between them would be fine, and maybe easier to mass-produce. Zerotalk 05:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El'ad is located in Central Israel
El'ad
El'ad
El'ad (Central Israel)
El'ad is located in Israel
El'ad
El'ad
El'ad (Israel)
I agree – I will investigate. As Zero says, the key is that they are properly "aligned". Zero, to your earlier point, I consider the overlay map to be a crucial component – without it the reader has much less confidence that we have aligned and scaled the maps correctly, as the street layouts have often changed very dramatically. With the overlay your eye can easily assess the overlapping features. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: I think you mean this functionality (see right). It works automatically for modern maps, and would be a logical build to make it work for historical maps. I will ask at Wikipedia talk:Lua. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks to advice at Wikipedia talk:Lua - see on the right. This can be put into the infobox. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See new versions at:
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the reader just trust our alignment? Zerotalk 06:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have another reason not to put the full openstreetmap in there - it is simply too time consuming to get it to align properly. If the PalestineOpenMaps guys can make this available, and have an automated function which allows downloads of snapshots of exactly the same area, that would be great. But doing it manually is too complex.
Pulling just the 1940s maps with and without overlay is straightforward as the gridlines are the same on both images and can be used for alignment. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further at the PalestineOpenMaps website, I am convinced that the best third image is the satellite view. It is very powerful to see how these places have vanished into forests or grasslands. Unfortunately I don't believe there are any images available with both the right resolution and the right licence. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Onceinawhile: To editor Huldra: Do you honestly think that File:Ashkelon_2020_street_map_overlaid_on_Survey_of_Palestine_map_from_1942.png is a useful map? Really? It is hard to trace the modern roads even with a modern map to help. Zerotalk 05:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero0000, personally I think it is incredibly valuable. For the first time the relative locations of the destroyed villages can be pinpointed accurately. For Askelon, it shows visually how the modern city sits atop five separate depopulated towns. I have never seen a better visualization of it.
On the other hand, it is too “busy” with information; when I look at it I actively toggle the switch back and forth.
How about if we swap the images round, so the default image is without the modern streets? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better. To get a non-busy overlay that shows essentially the same information, I would drop the modern roads and road names except for major roads, and keep the modern locality names. In this example there are about 20 modern locality names, which establishes the correspondence quite accurately. The fine detail of the modern streets is what makes it so hard to read and (that word again, sorry) so ugly, and they don't serve any purpose when they are not close to a pre-1948 feature. If we can get the overlay separately from the POM (without the background) it would be fairly easy to erase all those little suburban streets that add no value (and to make the rest blue at the same time). To make it even better (though I don't know how to do this in a non-labor-intensive fashion) outlines of the modern built-up regions could be added. Zerotalk 10:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Experimental animation for discussion

To another idea. Does Open Street Maps allow extraction of an image with specified latitude/longitude bounds? If that is true, I can make a script that extracts an image with specified bounds given in the Palestine Grid. Rectangles of the 1940s maps based on the Palestine Grid can be easily made using the grid lines. Should we look into this? Zerotalk 10:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: it does (there is a big "export" button at the top left of the OSM website), which allows the exporting of data, but also allows for a highlighting of a specific area that can then be screenshot. The challenge is the openstreetmap of these areas shows only in Hebrew, not in English. Their website does not have the functionality to translate, but other websites like Wikimedia maps do - however they don't have the export function. There are in-wikipedia templates to automatically bring the OSM map (e.g. Template:Infobox mapframe, but I can't figure out how to fix the edge coordinates (rather than just the pinpoint coordinate). Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: This sort of problem is solvable. Try this: [3] and look at the URL. The "15" is a zoom level and the 19566/13301 is a tile number. The meanings of these would need to be decoded, then a script can download the necessary tiles and assemble them. Then scale and crop. Before embarking on this task, asking the folks at maps.wikimedia would be good, but at the moment I can't find where to ask. Do you know? Zerotalk 12:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, it is here: mw:Extension talk:Kartographer and mw:Talk:Wikimedia_Maps. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Onceinawhile: To editor Huldra: I made this animation by hand but I could easily write a script to do it automatically given the before and after images. Things like the number of steps and the smoothness can be tuned; this is just an illustration. Zerotalk 12:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did it with an animated gif, but it can also be done in javascript, see [4]. Zerotalk 13:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I would prefer not to have any animation as a default (I find them rather distracting if I am to read the article). But they would be fine as a "toggle" option. What about a 3 toggle-options: the 1940s, present, and both, animated? Huldra (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I had in mind. In an article about the modern location, we could reverse the order. In other words, the article topic goes first. Zerotalk 04:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Zahiriyya_al-Tahta&oldid=1198292215"