Talk:Kafr Lam

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

A fact from Kafr Lam appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,907 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that during the Crusader era in Palestine, the village of Kafr Lam (fortress pictured) was sold to the Hospitallers by the lord of Caesarea for 16,000 besants?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/December.

Wikipedia

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal 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.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kafr vs. Kfar

Is there any reason that "Kfar" is being used in parts of the article (2nd paragraph intro, 2nd and 3rd in History, 3rd in 1948 history)? In general all Arab localities in all of Palestine past an present (Kafr Ein, Kafr Yasif, Kafr 'Ana, etc.) use "Kafr" on Wikipedia per past discussions. It was agreed that Kafr would signify an Arab town, while Kfar a Jewish town. Should I fix the "Kfars" or is there a particular reason to back its usage? Fantastic article by the way. Great job guys! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange decision. I've seen transliterations with both Kfar and Kafr for this town, and others. That's why its mixed up in the article. I also created a redirect from Kfar Lam here so that people who spell it the alternate way could find this article. I don't, however, have a problem with standradizing the spelling in this article to Kfar, if that's what you want to do, but I think we should still note somewhere in her that Kafr is a an alt transliteration. Tiamut^talk 11:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine and should indeed be done. Just per MoS and in consistence with other Palestinian places, "Kafr" should be written throughout the body of the article as the name of the article is "Kafr Lam". Just like us using Hebron not al-Khalil throughout the Hebron article. I'll make the necessary changes. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you noticed, but I went ahead and did it already. Tiamut^talk 17:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... Thanks for that! --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of depopulation

The infobox records the "Date of depopulation" as July 16, 1948. From the article, it seems that the village was "depopulated" on a number of other occasions: "The village was captured by Muslim forces in 1265, but retaken by the Crusaders shortly thereafter. In 1291, it was taken by the Mamluks." Is it safe to assume that the Hospitaller villagers were depopulated by the Muslims in 1265? July 16, 1948 would also seem to be inaccurate as it states that "Kafr Lam was evacuated early in May 1948". What was the cause of this evacuation, and is it considered a "depopulation" aswell? Chesdovi (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the references. It is standard in these articles to give as "cause of depopulation" what Morris (2004) writes. If you disagree: take it up with Benny Morris. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume when you say "cause of depopulation" you mean "date of depopulation", for it was that which I was querying. It may be standard to list a date of depopulation in a source or book which deals with the flight or expulsion of Arabs from their villages. But in an article on the village itself, I am not sure whether this information is needed in the infobox. It does look like it has be lifted straight from the PR website. Anyway, I was not really disputing whether a date should be included or not. What I was saying is the date given in the infobox makes it look unique - it was depopulated on such and such a date and was never depopulated in the past or at any other time during its history. It is misleading and boarders POV to put the date it was depopulated during the 48 war only in the infobox. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with HaBonim, Israel

Since both these article are about the same location, they should be merged. Does this occur elsewhere on wikipedia, that the same location has two articles? Al Quds redirects to Jerusalem. Wikipedia is not a memorial!? Chesdovi (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, people have argued exactly the opposite when it comes the Biblical sites that are associated with Palestinian localities. See for example, Gibeon and Al-Jib. I don't think merging is a good idea at all. The history of the new Israeli localities, is not the saem as that o the villages they replaced. They are two different subjects, each deserving of its own article. Tiamut^talk 14:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tewfik noted that "Large cities like Bethlehem or Jerusalem are the exceptions. Most biblical places are split from their modern successors because there is usually a long break in the actual habitation such that they are two different entities, rather than an evolution, and some times (not relevant in this case) the connection isn't certain." However, I tend to agree with Abnn who says that "It may make sense to merge the two articles together. Britannica only has one article. As it stands the Gibeon seems to deal only with the bible aspect, but it had a history long before and a long time after that. I would look to Bethlehem and how they worked its storied history and its current state into one rich article.". He directs to the talk page of Nablus for further discussion about this. Chesdovi (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd suggestion. Do you want Bayt Jibrin and Eleutheropolis merged as they were in the same place? Obviously not. Also, why merge with HaBonim, Israel and not Ein Ayala?? They are both are on the village land. See the problem? This is pure POV-pushing. I will remove the "merge"-header. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleutheropolis should not be merged because it is located some distance away form the village and is an archeological site in its own right. However I do not believe that history stopped with the creation of the State of Israel and therefore am of the opinion that Bayt Jibrin be merged with Beit Guvrin, Israel. Additionally, Ein Ayala's article states that the village was previously known as Ayn Ghazal, not Kafr Lam. I would add that since Lifta has not been "repopulated" its article is necessary. It is not standard to make new pages for a city during different eras, hence Jerusalem (After 1291) redirects to Jerusalem and Beisan to Beit She'an. Chesdovi (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the same principal Bayt Jibrin and Beit Guvrin are not in the same location but geographically separate the argument for combining the two is spurious...same applies to Kafr Lam...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guérin -reference in Khalidi

I cannot find the "Guérin, M. V., [1874:302], quoted in Khalidi, p. 170" -reference. In the 1874-book (about Samaria: wrong area?!) I cannot see anything relevant on p.302. Typo from Khalidi? Huldra (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, found it, it should be "Guérin, M. V., [1875:302],...Khalidi dates all his Guerin-books to 1874! That is, he gives the ref (on p610) to Vol I and II, both 1874. And I don´t know if he actually means Vol I: Judee (pt 1, 2 & 3) and Vol II: Samarie (pt 1 & 2) ....or if he means Samarie (vol I & II) : the latter could fit with the publishing date. See User:Huldra/Guerin.
Also: the date for the visit, 1841, is clearly wrong: Victor Guérin visited in 1870. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]