Talk:Taibe, Galilee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Israel (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

facts[edit]

How does a village founded in 1920 find its way onto a 1880s map? [1] Grid 192/223. It existed right through Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Crusader and Ottoman periods. Zerotalk 16:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that there were at least three places with this name; care is needed. Zerotalk 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the Index for SWP, this Taibe (= (Sh. 9, Oj), perhaps the Tubi of the lists of Thothmes III., II, 87; described by Guérin, 126.) Unfortunately they do not say which Guerin-book it is, but it is not any of the 2 Samaria-books. Huldra (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


Taibe, GalileeTaibe — At present we have 3 locations in Israel/Palestine with similar names, see Taybeh (disambiguation), and "Taibe" redirects to "Tayibe". I suggest that all 3 should be treated as the primary meaning of the spelling of their name. PatGallacher (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Support per nom and WP:PRECISION, but of course use hatnotes to facilitate navigation. PC78 (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose but some rationalization is needed. If you look at the Arabic, you will see that the names of these three places are exactly the same, namely الطيبة or لطيبة‎ without the definite article ("al-" or "et-"). The names in Hebrew they are also exactly the same. The fact that we have managed to use three different English transliterations is probably accidental. It is plausible that the most common English spellings are not the same, but we shouldn't assume that without some checking. If they aren't objectively distinguishable by name, we should use a "Name (location)" or "Name, location" main title for all three. Zerotalk 13:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
— In the 1931 census report (as official a source as exists for that time period), all three locations are spelled "Et Taiyiba". The same is true for the 1945 "Village Statistics" compiled by the mandatory government. Zerotalk 02:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - agree with Zero0000.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent Reverts[edit]

User Huldra's wholesale reverts of improvements made in the article are perplexing. The additional well sourced information on the mosque painting is relevant to the town's recent history. The article is so thin that it needs as much such sourced information as can be found. Removing it turns it nearly into a stub. I took her previous revert based on WP:UNDUE into consideration by trimming down the quote and adding important information as to why the painting was significant, in order to balance the information. Huldra extends no such consideration and removes everything, including a little more info on the fig crop and reverting upgrades of citations. WP has preferred citation standard, which is the one I used. Huldra's method gives no information on the source. Her claim that her method takes us to the page is unfounded because I maintained the same page links in the upgraded citations. These reverts do not at all improve the article but rather make it look thin and amateurish. They are entirely non-sensible, done without consideration and seem to harbor a hostile tone. Instead of such wholesale removals, it would help to be a little more collaborative and sensible.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, lets take one issue at a time.
First about the citations; your claim that "I maintained the same page links in the upgraded citations" is wrong. Here is your version, and here is mine. The article has 7 refs. (and the number is the same in each version), my concern is with ref #1, #4, #5; where your version took away the direct links. Refs # 2, #3, # 6, #7 have the same links, but in a more cluttered/more info (if you like). It is a matter of taste, but if you insist to revert the refs on those, I am not going to make an issue about it. As I said; I think that is mostly a matter of taste. (Except looking closely, it looks as if ref #7 should go all together; wikipedia is not an add-site for private commercial interest.)
However, look carefully at the different versions in ref #1, #4, #5: my version takes you directly to p.167 in ref #1, directly to p.104 in ref #4, and directly to p.87 in ref #6. Your version does not. In addition, it clutter up the reference section; the full info on the source should go into the "Bibliography"-section. (the full Pringle-ref. should also go there; I´ll fix the Pringle-ref. in a moment)
Finally; about the content; AFAIK this is an old village, I believe mentioned the the 1596 Ottoman daftar.(I am trying to verify that at the moment). There is also more info in the #5-link, SWP (=Survey of Wester Palestine), that could be expanded, as it is in PD (=no worry about violating copyrights, unlike the Haaretz-link). In this context to let 1/3 of the article be about a recent mosque-painting looks absurd. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC) (PS: If you want more info about the village; please dig up the population in the 1931 cencus.)
Thanks for the considerate response, Huldra. One thing at at time.
If you examine my citations carefully, you'll see that I did link to the specific pages in the "titles" of the books. The title links in reft #1, #4 and #5 are identical to your page links. So that should not be an issue.
I understand your aesthetic sense in doing it this way and I respect it. I made the change for two reasons. The first is that being such a small article at this point, it seems superfluous to have the references repeated in the bibliography, albeit in expanded form, and it's a little confusing. I think the method you're using is good for cases where several sources from different pages are used from the same book. In which case having the short form citations in the refs with page numbers and link is enough, while all the book info is in one bibliography entry. As it stands, there are no such multiple references to any one book, so it seems unnecessary at this point to have that bibliography section repeating the single citations alone.
The second reason was to unify the style of the refs, as it is there are both short and more detailed refs in the section and it seems awkward. It's general WP policy to use the same style uniformly on any one article.
Your method has an advantage in the edit box of the articles because the ref info there is shorter, I agree. But as far as cluttering, I think that it causes additional clutter on the page itself because the clutter avoided in the refs is present in the next bibliography section anyway. I also think in such a case, the reader has a harder time finding the information. If they use the ref page link and want to know about the book, they have to go another step either by finding the proper bibliography entry, which isn't clear in all cases because two of the books are very similar - or they have to search through the PDF to the title and info page to find it, which can be tedious on the web in big PDF files such as these.
I think all this should be taken into consideration, but it's not a very big issue at this point. I hope you understand my intention is not to infringe on an aesthetic preference, but like you, to find the simplest, cleanest way to present the necessary information for the reader's benefit. And it seems that doing it in a unified form without unnecessary repetitions is very advantageous when so many ref details are needed.
I also understand your concern in the additional info on painting the mosque. However, this is not a small marginal issue at all. Taibe's position towards Israel is its most notable characteristic because it's somewhat unique in Arab communities, and should be explained when sources are available. Removing such information for the reason you give effectively prevents going into any detail about the town because the article is so small anyway. I think we have to start with what we have now and look to expand on it. I have two links, this and and this, in very reliable Hebrew language papers that offer a lot more information. The most interesting for our purpose is that Taibe is the hometown of Haneen Zoabi, the parliament member who participated in the Marmara Flotilla. She brought fame to Taibe by being elected to parliament. The Marker article says the town has become impatient with her since then because her actions violate the spirit of the town that helped her get elected. I'm not here to fight political battles and I think you'll find me very objective in the work. I just think this is the most significant venue to begin expanding the article. I agree it shouldn't be given undue weight but we should also be looking forward to this article improving and having a lot more information in it in the near future to balance everything out. That seems to make more sense than to limit areas of interest to short one-sentence paragraphs as it is now.
About the reference on the figs. I did not introduce this info into the article. I saw it's a small site but the information used in the article does not advance their commercial interest. It's a little iffy, I agree, but a little broader consideration is needed here at this stage. The information seems knowledgeable, objective and reliable. If we find a better source for it, we should replace it, but for now, it seems alright. I don't see why the little more detail about the fig agriculture is a problem. The article should be striving for expansion and improvement. Not tight-lid limitation.
A final note, the information about the influx into central Israel is not about this Taibe. That line (ref #7) is about this other Tayibe in central Israel. I'll remove it soon. There is also another Taybeh in the Samaria region. They're spelled the same way in Arabic and Hebrew, and are often confused in translation. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, some notes:
  • Yes you are right, you can get to the page by clicking your link, (as long as one does not click on the page no): I had not noticed. And that is the problem with your way of linking: it is not obvious that you get to the correct page by clicking on the title. And you are not correct about, say, SWP: there are typically several different pages of interest in the same book; see below.
  • And thanks for moving the (ref #7) - Gilabrand brought it in, & I didn´t think of checking it.
  • And the best of people can get the 3 "Taybehs" mixed-up, just look at Talk:Tayibe; we have been trying to clean things up for some time.
  • I am sorry: I do not read/speak Hebrew or Arabic; I cannot comment on sources in those languages. But the bio of Haneen Zoabi say she is from Nazareth.
  • And then to the important issue: This place is an old village. The Pringle-ref, and the 1596- daftar data indicate continuous habitation for a millenium. All the 4 Arab villages in the Gilboa Regional Council (indeed, a lot of Arab villages in Israel) have long histories, and I have, whenever I come across data about them (and believe me, you do, with such old villages!), added it to their bibliography, with a direct link to the pages where they are dealt with. Typically, in SWP, the same village can, be mentioned under several areas, like "topography" here: p87, and under "archæology" here; p. 126-7. Often it is not convenient to use all the refs. at once, you can see the difference between Sandala, Israel (=all page-refs moved up into the article) with Na'ura (=no page-refs moved up). It is done this way, as it is the most practical (read: quicker) way to find a lot of refs. about these old villages. Now, from this you can also see that there is still a lot of info in the Bibliography, not yet used in this article. Including the Victor Guérin-info (translation given in SWP). Also, a lot of the references given in Pringle are not yet mentioned, much less used (The Ellenblum & Benvenisti books, for a start.)
  • If you are interested expanding this article, I would suggest that you start there. With academic literature, written in English. Dealing with this village (among many others).
  • The idea that the painting of a mosque, or even the actions of person who is possibly (but only possibly), associated with the village recently, is of vital importance to this article, is...well, not to be rude; it shows a stunning lack of perspective, IMHO. Sorry to be so blunt here. But then I´m most interested in history here, and not recent/present disagreements.
  • Cheers, Huldra (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Your explanations on the citations are convincing and I can now see you've also done good work standardizing them on other articles. No more interference on that. Regarding the current politics, I appreciate your interest in history and it is a central component of any article on a place, but we'd be hard pressed to find such an article in Wikipedia that focused primarily or only on history. Most other such places cover all known aspects extensively, especially places in this particular region. Here are Detroit, Paris, Ramallah and Nablus as examples. I don't see any stunning lack of perspective in my suggestion at all, but like I said I appreciate your love for the history. So please be tolerant of such additions, Wikipedia is also a history encyclopedia, but additionally much more.
BTW, Mayor Hisham Zuabi who was quoted from Haaretz is Haneen Zoabi's close relative (spelling discrepancy in translation only). She was born in Nazareth as it's a big family. Most, if not all the 1750 residents of Taibe are members of the Zoabi family. Haneen became a symbol for the town, even with the controversy. There's a lot more on the structure, culture and other recent aspects that I'm looking at and hope to get to soon. Cheers to you, Huldra. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Typos:[edit]

Pringle, 1997, p. 104 gives gridno. 192/228 for "Umm at-Taiyiba"; however that is around Al-Tira, Baysan. The present grid-no. 192/223 for this place seems to be correct, and the Pringle-ref *is* about this place. I think it is a Pringle grid-no.-typo. Huldra (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

...and Mixups:[edit]

This source:

  • Atrash, Walid (2015-02-26). "Et-Taiyiba Final Report" (127). Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel. 

...actually gives Guerin, 1880, (Galiliee 2), pp. 268-9; for this place. I´m pretty sure that place is up in Lebanon..... This article has had the *correct* Guerin-ref for years; why don´t these guys check Wikipedia?! (Heh) Huldra (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)