Jump to content

Talk:Artuf

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


Unclear

[edit]

This article does not make clear who lived in the village in the first half of the 20th century. Chesdovi (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artuf vs Hartuv

[edit]

What is the relationship between the Artuf and Hartuv articles ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are cousins. nableezy - 05:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone actually seen them together at the same family gathering to confirm that it's not multiple personality disorder ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes aside, the articles should be merged. It's the same geographical place.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. But then we just fight about the name, or even if it should be all merged with Naham. I think there needs to be a separate article on the village that existed prior to 48 so I would be against merging Naham and this article. I would support merging Hartuv with either Naham or with Artuf as it makes up both a part of the history of Naham (which should also include some mention of Artuf) and it makes up a part of Artuf. nableezy - 06:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naham is a modern settlement on a small portion of the land, and is not historically important, whereas Har-Tuv has had a long and colorful history, so I would leave Naham out of this. Maybe the article could be Artuf/Hartuv.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Har-Tuv has become the geographical name of the area. Nesher Har-Tuv is the current name of the cement factory, there is a Har-Tuv Junction, etc. I don't think the articles should be merged.
That reminds me - from the sources I've seen the cemenet factory started production in 1955, this article implies that it was built around the time the maabara was. For your consideration. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it similiar to places like Volgograd=Stalingrad=Tsaritsyn or Saint Petersburg=Leningrad=Petrograd ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Artuf and Hartuv existed at the same time. They were two separate communities. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see what you mean but is that just because Hebrew has a 'v' and Arabic doesn't ? Combining it as an Artuf/Hartuv article seems better in a way so that the entire history of the location can be presented in one place. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the joke about the 'v', but whatever. These are two separate places, of two separate communities which have a separate history. But if you guys want to merge, go ahead. I just think it will cause fights. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just meant that a Hebrew speaker would pronounce Artuf as Hartuv and an Arabic speaker the other way around because of the differences in the alphabets. I think this is a fight worth having because at the moment the information about this place suffers from Balkanisation based on politics which isn't what we are meant to do. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike some other places that didn't exist at the same time, like say Beit Guvrin and Bayt Jibrin, Hartuv and Artuf did, for 50+ years. I agree with you about the Balkanization that this and many similar articles suffer from, though. I assumed it's like that on purpose. As I said above, if you guys want to merge, I won't stop you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Beit Guvrin and Bayit Jibrin are the perfect example of articles that need to be merged in precisely the same way. They existed at the same geographical place - as is true of so many places in Israel, where cities have been built on top of each other for thousands of years. Guvrin & Jibrin are phonetically related in the same way as Hartuv & Artuf. But what can you do when certain editors want to rewrite history and insist that villages lived in a bubble, Arab to the core, despite being built on the remnants of Caananite/Israelite/Jewish/Crusader/Roman ruins. --Gilabrand (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe what we need to do is first go through the procedure to decide a policy (I have no idea how to do that) and then merge/split articles per whatever decision is arrived at for all articles of this nature.
Like I said above, I created the new Hartuv article because I was under the impression that splitting articles is how things are done here. If it's open to interpretation, lets find consensus for a particular way of doing things and stick to that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I dont think we can call the article Artuf/Hartuv nor do I think we should. From what I have been reading the last hour or so Hartuv was a part of Artuf and it should be a part of the Artuf article. But if it is felt that it needs to have its own article fine, but my opinion is it should be merged here and redirected here. nableezy - 14:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a standardised policy across all articles like this. It woul be good to avoid a narrow focus on the last 100 years or so and the usual silliness we all enjoy. The most obvious approach to me would be to base articles on the current (recognised) location/name, provide previous names (with redirects) and the entire history of the location in each article. So maybe Israeli names could take precedence for places internationally recognised as being in Israel and Palestinian names for places internationally recognised as being in the Palestinian territories. Anyway, it's unlikely to be straightforward. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. How do we go about doing it though? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a good place to start. nableezy - 15:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to talk about specific articles. I think we need a general policy for all articles about places. Arguing about them one at at time is not only time consuming and annoying, it results in an encyclopedia without internal coherence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just trust me, that would be the place to start a conversation on a "general policy". nableezy - 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Artuf. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

picture

[edit]
User:Padres Hana: The latest lead picture is from Hartuv, me thinks, look at this source http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4069788,00.html, and see the discussion here, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am not sure - the buildings do look sort of like a colony. But the Palmach Archive names the source, Amos Amichai, and the description appears to say "village was devastated". I am relying on Google translation so there could be a mistake/confusion. Should I remove it? Padres Hana (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hartuv was destroyed in the 1929 Palestine riots, so it could refer to that. The Israeli guys over at commons seem to think that this was Hartuv, so does the ynet.co.il source, no? Thanks, btw, for uploading all these pictures.... Huldra (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed photo

[edit]

I have removed picture

Artuf after demolition July 1948

because I have found the same picture in the same archive with a caption describing it as the view from Bayt Jiz to Bayt Susin. The details for this photo are very precise: source and date are given But I have left the second picture on the Bayt Susin page because it was amongst a large collection of photos from Bayt Jiz. I am not familiar with the landscape so not 100% sure which is correct. Padres Hana (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artuf&oldid=1205715874"