Talk:Lifta

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Latest change

In this change Gilabrand, (who is still topic-banned from the IP area) with a deceptive edit-line (="move down") not only moves the "archaeology"-section down, but also changes the headline from "Attempts at biblical identification" to "Biblical era". (Hmm, I really should take Gilabrand to AE for this).

I changed the headline back, this was reversed by User:Sir Joseph with edit-line "non reason to use this subject header, keep all headers uniform, as in this is the Biblical age, the next one is iron age, roman age, etc. The section says there is an attempt at identifying Lifta as,,,,,"

SJ: the difference between the other headlines (Iron Age, Roman and Byzantine periods etc) is of course that the evidence of those eras are undisputed. The so-called "Biblical era" is, to be blunt: pure speculation.

Please change it back, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and changed back. nableezy - 22:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, you're using a POV header title, which of course is not allowed. The section is the era, and it's the Biblical Era, the section has the information about that section, and it discusses that there is information about if Lifta is the same as other places discussed during the Biblical Era. But the header should be Biblical Era. Obviously, it won't get changed back because this is a numbers game, but you are wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issue, namely that the info in the so-called "Biblical era" is just speculation. You make it sounds as if it undisputed. Huldra (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, It could be disputed, but the era is the Biblical Era. The information inside the section already says that. The header is supposed to be non-POV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not the Biblical Era...it is the alleged Biblical Era. There is a difference. You are trying to make it into something undisputed, which it is not. Huldra (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the section does not mention that there are those who disagree, this is undisputed. In any case, the word "Attempt" should not be part of the header, even if it were disputed, to keep the header short and simple. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"considered by some" != "undisputed"; I thought that was obvious. Well, this has taught me one thing: to take Gila straght to AE whenever she pulls such a stunt, Huldra (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead

This is a place with undisputed documented history going back hundreds of years.

Still, 4/5 of the lead is about what has happened since 1948? The is completely WP:UNDUE. I will (re)move some of the post-48 stuff into the "State of Israel"-paragraph, unless somebody can convince me of its "vital importance", Huldra (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The question of due or undue is not a function of years, but of notable events. I'd keep that in mind, and be careful not to remove too much from the lead. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Even the most basic reading of WP:N and WP:NPOV would prove that false. Notability has nothing to do with the content of articles. It is strictly a measure of whether or not a topic merits its own article. The in a nutshell of WP:N should make that clear. nableezy - 02:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Not much of the post-1948 is notable anyway. Zero^talk 02:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@nableezy The lead should summarize the article. The article should be about things that are notable. As long as you edit with these simple things in mind, everything should be fine. Debresser (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No, again, notability has nothing to do with article content. Please actually read WP:N. It is strictly about whether a topic merits its own article. Notability has not one thing to do with the material within an article. nableezy - 14:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK: the Jewish residents never built anything, or left anything of physical nature there; as I understand it, they just took over the homes that were already there, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@nableezy Please read my posts again. I used normal English, not Wikilawyer language. When I said "notable" I wasn't referring to the Wikipedia notability guidelines, but simply to being notable, as in something that we should mention in the article, as opposed to non-notable events that we shouldn't write about. It is sad that I need to explain this. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Well thats just special. nableezy - 17:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

I would like to edit this page, as it is false historical narration of the expulsion of Palestinians from their houses. The narration is purely made to justify the acts of the Zionist Apartheid state of israel. 82.146.175.2 (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

recent edits

The recent changes completely changed the scope of this article from the depopulated Palestinian village to an article about a nature reserve. The changes also introduced several unsourced or poorly sourced material, and included some outright bogus claim, as well as repeatedly using an anachronism for the name of the village throughout its history. Changes to the scope of the article and title require consensus here, not one editor erasing, once more, an entire Palestinian village. nableezy - 07:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion. However, I just disagree with your assessment. This is just one of many Israeli nature reserves and national parks of historic value to Israel, and I added the infobox to bring the article in line with others of the similar topic. I added quite a few references all of which were from reputable sources such as Columbia University Press, major media outlets, Jerusalem Post, also the Bible because Mei Neftoach (the official and historical name of this place since 1000 BCE until the Ottoman occupation) is referenced several times in the Book of Yehoshua. I am not sure if it is mentioned in the Quran as well, but it is likely. I am not sure what you meant by "erasing once more", I have not edited this page prior to this. The history of this archaeological site has been erased from Wikipedia, and I tried to rectify that by adding some more information but you "erased" it. I appreciate your suggestion of a separate page for the nature reserve that this site comprises, I may create such an article. I understand you are happy with the article the way it is. I just wanted to convey the diverse history of the site, it is not exclusively Palestinian, it has Jewish and ancient Israelite history as these were the first people to inhabit the area now comprising Mei Neftoach/Lifta in the Iron Age, as well as Babylonian, Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Ayyubid, Ottoman, British, and Jordanian ties as well. The long, rich and varied history of this site deserves to be fleshed out and have attention. I will refrain from editing this page further, I think the idea of two separate article (one for the nature reserve, one like this) is a good idea, so it doesn’t take too much away from what is here already.Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You conveyed that diverse history by a. claiming that "The village was abandoned after the local Arab residents took up arms against their Jewish neighbors and the nascent State of Israel, during the early part of the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine." when the sourcing says that the residents fled following an assault on the village by Jewish forces, b. claiming that it is established fact that Lifta is the site of the Biblical Mei Neftoach, which is in fact a disputed claim, c. repeatedly referring to a place that even Israeli sources call "Lifta" (eg ToI, JPost, Haaretz) by a name used by almost nobody besides the Israeli Parks Authority and even at that fairly recently. nableezy - 09:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I too think it is inappropriate to subsume Lifta into a decidedly modern and particularist notion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-NPOV nonsense from an editor who ought to know better.Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Are other editors supposed to think that Nableezy edits from a neutral point of view, when most of your edits are pro-Palestinian biased? This is not an attack, I actually admire your dedication to this aim as there are few people on the other side who are as dedicated on Wikipedia, when they should be nonetheless. I, however, am neutral, I am not an Israeli citizen nor a Palestinian citizen. Why is the lead saying this is a Palestinian village, when all settlements at that time were Palestinian including all Jewish towns because this is what everyone was called at the time of the abandonment of Mei Neftoach, during the British Mandate period, the Arabs within Israel (this is part of internationally-recognized Israel, within the green line), considered themselves to be Arabs, they did not call themselves Palestinians until the 1960s at least and it was Arafat who popularized the term. At that point in time of the abandonment, all inhabitants of the Mandate territory were Palestinians, including the Jews and actually Palestinian was used more by Jews (in international forums and names of organizations, also in the Olympics, etc). Why is it not mentioned in the lead that this is located within Israel, it’s legal status is not under dispute, yet the lead does not mention it is located in Israel and the infobox used is for a country that it is not located in and that does not have jurisdiction over the area. Regarding that quote, I added references for it including this passage from the Jerusalem Post in 2021, which you see will support the text you quoted:

The abandoned Arab village has been identified with the biblical Nephtoah and its spring is mentioned in the Book of Joshua as delineating the northern border of the tribe of Judah: “The outcome of the lottery for the tribe of the Children of Judah.... The border proceeded directly from the top of the mountain to the spring of Mei Neftoach and broadened to the cities of Mount Ephron.” (Joshua 15:9). Ruins have been found here dating to the First Temple period. While inhabited in the Roman, Byzantine and Crusader periods, the extensive remains visible today mostly date from the late Ottoman and Mandate times. They include several olive oil presses, a mosque and maqam (Islamic shrine) honoring Seif ad-Din – one of the mujahadeen who fought with Saladin. The scores of stone buildings scattered across the steeply sloping site feature groin vaults, a vernacular echo of Jerusalem’s Crusader architecture that allows roofs to be erected without timber rafters. The center of the ruined village was the spring, today landscaped as a popular swimming hole turned mikve. During the British Mandate, agricultural Lifta prospered as Jerusalem grew. Some villagers sold land to Jews that became the neighborhood of Romema. A primary school was built – which after 1948 became the Nachshon School, and today is the Talmud Torah Mishkan Betzalel. The strategic village became a battleground following the United Nations’ November 29, 1947 vote to partition Palestine. Villagers took up arms to ambush armored convoys snaking up the narrow road from Tel Aviv. After repeated defeats involving the loss of life and materiel, the Hagana changed strategy and began conquering the Arab villages in order to drive off the guerillas. The 2,548 Liftawis began abandoning their village but each family posted an armed guard to protect their property. They too fled after the massacre at nearby village Deir Yassin, today the site of Herzog Hospital, on April 9, 1948.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yallayallaletsgo (talk • contribs) 04:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

References

I am not an Israeli or Palestinian citizen, so by your own definition I am neutral. Kindly do not discuss personal disputes on article talk pages. The lead says it was a Palestinian Arab village, not just a Palestinian village as you say above. Your out there ideas on when people started calling themselves Palestinian is a typical propaganda talking point, but it is based on literally nothing. Nobody called this place Mei Neftoach, and your edits expunging the word Lifta and replacing it with "the village" or "Mei Neftoach" betrayed the POV that you claim not to have. Finally, news articles like a Jerusalem Post article you quote, are very poor sources for history. Actual historians document the Lehi entering the village and blowing up several houses and the residents fleeing. The infobox uses a map of Mandatory Palestine because that is where this village was. You are mistaken on both what the article says and what the sources say. The common name of this village is Lifta. The name we use will be Lifta. The best sources say Lifta was depopulated following a military assault by Jewish forces. We include the disputed claim that Lifta is the same as Mei Neftoach, but that again is not an undisputed fact, despite your attempt to claim in this article it is. That you think your edits are "neutral" and mine not is cute, but not really a concern of mine. There is a very clear consensus here against your edits. Kindly do not reinstate them. Edit-warring against a consensus may result in sanctions. nableezy - 15:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Selfstudier: what Yallayallaletsgo added is/was non-NPOV nonsense. (also; I am not Palestinian, or Arab, or Jew, so I am neutral in this (apparently!)), Huldra (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

But fine, since you want to apparently have me document all the ways your supposedly neutral self slanted this article, here you go:

You wrote:

Immediately prior to the independence of the Jewish state, Mei Neftoach was known by its inhabitants as Lifta, and was mostly populated by Arabs. The village was abandoned after the local Arab residents took up arms against their Jewish neighbors and the nascent State of Israel, during the early part of the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine.

No, Lifta was known as Lifta going back to at least 1800 and likely much earlier than that. And regarding the specious abandoned after the Arab residents took up arms against their "neighbors", according to Walid Khalidi in All That Remains, what actually happened was

The fighting in Lifta, as well as the adjacent Jerusalem districts of Rumayma and Shaykh Badr, was triggered by the Haganah in the earliest days of war. ... According to Israeli historian Benny Morris, the Haganah fired the first shots in December 1947, killing the Palestinian owner of a filling station in Rumayna, on the grounds that he was suspected of informing Arab forces about the departure of Jewish convoys to Tel Aviv. The next day, a grenade was thrown at a Jewish bus. Palestinian historian Arif al-Arif adds that a coffeehouse in Lifta was attacked on 28 December with Sten guns and submachine-guns, and that six of the patrons were killed and seven wounded. The New York Times account puts the number of dead at five, adding that members of the Stern Gang halted their bus outside the cafe, sprayed the patrons with machine-gun fire and threw grenades.

Al-Arif writes that most of the residents of Lifta left after the attack on the coffeehouse and the rest evacuated soon after. These actions were followed by a number of others, with the Haganah, IZL, and Stern Gang repeatedly raiding both Rumayma and Lifta.

Next, you write of a first temple period as though it were established fact that Lifta in fact sits on the grounds of Neftoach, whereas that is not an undisputed fact. See the discussion at #Should_we_have_"it_is_located_on_the_spot_of_the_Tanachic_village_"Nephtoah""_...in_the_lead? for why that is not the case.

Next, starting with the Ottoman era, you continue with the disputed claim that Lifta is Mei Neftoach, writing that it Mei Neftoach was merely known as Lifta during this one period. And then you proceeded to replace every instance of Lifta with "Mei Neftoach" or "the village". Among the changes from Lifta is In 2010, an archaeological survey was conducted at Mei Neftoach by Mordechai Heiman on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) with the source actually using Lifta (a cut off, but very much not Mei Neftoach). That is a fairly blatant example of falsifying a source in order to push a POV.

Finally, you removed all of the external links about the village and its Palestinian history, leaving only the nature reserve link.

But for some reason, you think your edits are "neutral" and mine display a "pro-Palestinian basis". Honestly, the changes of Lifta to Mei Neftoach are so tendentious that had you had an up to date discretionary sanctions alert I may well have reported it. If you repeat such tendentious edits again, now that you have said notice, I will report it. nableezy - 22:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

To User:Yallayallaletsgo Re your "Immediately prior to the independence of the Jewish state, Mei Neftoach was known by its inhabitants as Lifta, and was mostly populated by Arabs." This place was called Lifta in the 1596 tax-records by the Ottomans, and it was all populated by Muslim and Christian Palestinian Arabs, at least according to the Village Statistics, 1945. You should really be topic banned for making up such a story. Huldra (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit proposal to update the status of Lifta

I only have 320 edits, and a minimum of 500 edits are required to update the Lifta page. I wanted to propose an edit to update the status of Lifta on the Wikipedia page based on this article from 16 August 2022: "Plan shelved to turn historic Arab village at Jerusalem entrance into luxury housing" Obversa (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Added the update after reaching the minimum of 500 edits threshold. Obversa (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)