Jump to content

Talk:Beit Safafa

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


How to describe Beit Safafa

[edit]

I have a problem with the current description. None of the sources cited describes Beit Safafa as "a mixed Arab-Israeli and Palestinian neighborhood" as our text currently reads. Two sources cited in our article use "Palestinian village" (Suleiman and the Jordan Times article). The New York Times article describes it as an "Arab neighborhood" several times. This is why I had changed the lead sentence to reflect this. However, Aslbsl, you have reverted back to your preferred version. Could you explain how the sources cited support it? Could you also please read Arab citizens of Israel#Terminology? You seem to be unaware of the problems with use of the term "Arab Israeli".Tiamuttalk 11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for raising the issue. Your change saying it is a "Palestinian village on the outskirts of Jerusalem" would apply to a place like az-Za'ayyem, and removed mention from the first line that i) part of Beit Safafa is uncontroversially in Jerusalem, and ii) part of it is considered to be in East Jerusalem (i.e. annexed by the Israelis to Jerusalem in 1967, though it was not previously in the Jordanian municipality), and iii) that because of that, some of its residents are Arab citizens of Israel, and iv) some are Palestinian. I attempted to address your concerns here. For the record, the J Times source actually refers to the southern residents as "Jordanians".
My sense from the sources is also that we should refer to it today as a neighborhood per the NYT, in the same way that while Abu Dis was once a village, it grew sufficiently to now be a town. The history section can and does refer to it as a village.
Also, you again put the "annexation" section after 1967, which implies something that didn't happen and isn't in the source. And since we are using a personal description, while I don't doubt that many Christians and some Jews moved in, the source does not seem strong enough to base exact numbers off of. On a similar note, the language you put in about the Jews 'not mixing', is not the precise formulation used, but more importantly seems to be personal commentary lacking in encyclopedic importance. Aslbsl (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to see some mention of its having been a Palestinian village for hundreds of year in the lead. Its identity as a neighborhood of Jerusalem is only decades old. I also appreciate you changing Arab-Israeli to Arab citizens of Israel, but it implies they are not Palestinian. As the terminology section I referred you to shows, most do identify as Palestinian, so it would perhaps be better to say it is a Palestinian Arab neighborhood whose residents include Arab citizens of Israel.
Another problem I did not bring up previously is your removal of Israeli settlement as a description for Gilo. Is there a reason for that? Are you dnying its a settlement? Tiamuttalk 15:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't seen your comments before. Its history is discussed in-depth in that section. The lead talks about its current status, in the same way that Nazareth's lead talks about Arab citizens of Israel. I don't see it denying anything...
As far as Nassiriya continuously trying to get the "settlement" terminology in, this article isn't talking about that subject at all and isn't the place for the discussion, even a boilerplate one. Of course following the link would solve that problem. Aslbsl (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Safafa is in East Jerusalem

[edit]

Beit Safafa is in East Jerusalem. We should not use the area of the Jerusalem Municipality, or those who use it, as a reference. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Read the article. The neighborhood is in south Jerusalem. The source for that is the New York Times. Wikipedia maps are hardly an RS. --Geewhiz (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In which way am I wrong? According to the Greater Jerusalem area, defined by Israel, it is in the south. The whole point is that it's not true just because New York Times refers to it a such. I am not basing this on the Wikipedia map itself, and if you dispute the map say so, but linked to it as it is acceptabed because it's based on facts. The fact is that part of the city was in East Jerusalem and part of it in West Jerusalem. Here are some who refer to it as being part of East Jerusalem:
This is stated in the article:
In the wake of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the village was divided in two. The southern part was in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank, while the northern part, originally in no man's land, was transferred to Israel with the signing of 1949 armistice agreement, and was later annexed to Jerusalem by Israel.[12][13]
I don't think anyone dispute that the area was divided between West and East Jerusalem. So presenting it as a part of "south Jerusalem" is wrong. It would be correct to describe it as one part being in East Jerusalem and one in West, while both were reunited during Israels capture of the area in 1967. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iriszoom, the article says all this. So what exactly are you contesting? --Geewhiz (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, there must be a neutral view. This is not the case now with how Beit Safafa's location is described. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typos...

[edit]

Pringle, 1997, p. 29 writes that the village was granted as a fief to the Knights Hospitallers sometime before September 1110... but the date on the source (Röhricht, 1893, RRH, pp. 12-13, no. 57) is Sept. 1109. Either this is a typo, the calendar was different (?) ..or the source say something in Latin that the village will be given as a fief in the next year.... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pringle is correct. 57 is a list of all of the gifts made throughout the year preceding the September 28, 1110 date for that year (omnia dona . . in toto regno adhuc facta:'all of the gifts hitherto made throughout the kingdom' (of Jerusalem)). The text opens in the present tense for that date, and then sums up the gifts in the past tense. That is presumably why Röhricht gives 1110 Sept 28 and glosses it (1109) by the preceding year. The text represents a review and official 'confirmation' by Baldwin of the terrains gifted over an extensive period before the given date of registration (I guess).Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beit Safafa. 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) 01:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beit_Safafa&oldid=1206223017"