Talk:Sepphoris

Rewrite lead

I think the lead section should be re-written in a way that makes it clear what Tzippori actually is before explaining its significance or whatever (not the other way around). I don't know much about this archeological site and would prefer a more knowledgeable editor to do this. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While Safurriya is definitely of importance to Jewish history, it is not exclusively so. As mentioned in the introduction, it is rich in archaeological history from all civilizations and time periods and this should be the emphasis of the article, rather than a stress on its Jewish heritage only. I object to Lord Ameth's recent edit putting its significance to Jewish history ahead of all others. I have done significant research on the city and from what I have read, it is important to many different groups for many different reasons. In line with NPOV, that should be reflected in the article. This does not preclude a better fleshing out, or even a section on its importance to Jewish tradition and history, but this should be backed by citations. Tiamut 22:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Let me please address your concerns in order. First, my intention last night was simply to solve Ynhockey's problem as mentioned above. The article should not begin with "...is located northwest etc etc". It should begin with what Tzippori/Saffuriyah is, and why it is significant. It is significant as the oldest Jewish community ever uncovered; that is what makes it especially significant. There are tons of other Arab villages all over Israel, and there are many other archaeological sites as well. Second, outside of the Crusader castle, the content of the archaeological site, is entirely Jewish. True, it comes from a time when Jewish culture was very closely intertwined with Greco-Roman culture, hence the mosaics found, and the Roman bath, but Greco-Roman architecture and a mosaic were also found in the Jewish synagogue/chapel on the site. But this is not a case of me pushing a pro-Jewish POV. I am simply presenting the facts as I know them, and in your attempts to sideline and obscure the Jewish significance by simply saying that it is one of many cultures represented, I think you're seeking an anti-Jewish POV, which is not appropriate. Finally, I have been to the site several times, and there is no Arab town on that archaeological site. It may be only a few hundred meters away, but it is not on the same site as you claim.

Once again, my goals yesterday, and in the future, are not to push any particular point of view. All I wish is to see that this article, particularly the introduction, is improved in general, fleshed out to proper paragraph format. LordAmeth 07:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I agree that Tzippori importance to Jewish history in the region should be featured in the article, but not at the expense of its importance to other nations, civilizations and peoples. If you notice, I left in your sentence about the importance of the site to Jews, and asked that you provide a citation for it. If you intend to flesh that out later in the article, that is acceptable to me.

While there is no Arab twon currently in Tzippori that is because the site was ethnically cleansed of its Arab inhabitants in the hostilities surrounding 1948. There is no present day Saffuriya. There is a refugee camp in Nazareth known as the al-Safafira quarter. If you read the article I have cited in the introduction, the archaeologist who visited the site prior to Israel's establishment notes the presence of the twon and the use of the Crusader fortress as a school for the local inhabitants. That you do not see the town today is a result of its inhabitants having been purged by Israeli settlers. Please continue working on your edits, but please also take into consideration the concerns I have raised here. I am not pushing anti-Jewish POV at all. Just ensuring that equal consideration is given to all those who claim a special attachment to the twon of Tzippori/Saffuriya. Thanks. Tiamut 13:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it far more likely that the people of Saffuriyah fled as a result of the general turmoil and violence of the time. Jews do not "purge." It may be simply a matter of semantics, but it is an important one. Whatever happened there, whatever the extent to which the Arabs of Saffuriyah did or did flee of their own accord, I find it highly unlikely, in fact next to impossible, that anything like the "purges" of Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Bosnia/Yugoslavia, or Darfur happened here. LordAmeth 22:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You can take issue with the choice of the term "purge"; however, the village was ethnically cleansed. "Israeli forces attacked the town in July 1948, and most residents fled north to Lebanon. A small number remained or reinfiltrated, but according to Israeli historian Benny Morris -­ no friend of the Palestinians but an honest historian ­- Jewish authorities wanted Saffuriya's approximately 7,000 acres of cultivable land for new Israeli villages and also feared that, if left alone, the town would return to its prewar population. As a result, in early 1949 the authorities trucked the remaining Palestinian inhabitants to other villages, distributed the land to three Israeli farming villages, and demolished Saffuriya's 700-plus homes." [1] Putting people onto trucks to forcibly ship them out of an area is reminiscent of the tactics used by Nazi Germany in its early phases when people were sent to concentration camps, but not death camps. I usually don't make that kind of parallel since I am aware of the sensitivities surrounding the tragedy of mass murder that befell Jews and others during WWII, but since it is you that brought it up, you might consider the similarity in tactics in this case, though admittedly, the overall strategy and objectives remain different. In any case, the point relevant to this article is that Saffuriya and its town lands are where Tzippori, and for that matter Ha-Solelim, Allon Ha-Galil Hosha'aya, and Chanton, are located today. [2] As such, there is no present-day Arab town of Saffuriya located next to Tzippori. Tzippori and the other twons mentioned above were built in the place of Saffuriya and its lands. Their homes were destroyed and the refugees, most of whom still hold Israeli citizenship, live in a Nazareth neighbourhood known as Hay al-Safafira which sprung up after they were dispossesed of their homes and lands. All of this information is relevant to the article, particularly if the Saffuriya article is proposed for merger with the Tzippori one, as it should be. On a personal noted, having many friends that are refugees from Saffuriya, I cannot allow their sense of historical grievance and longing to return to their lands be stripped of legitimacy or context. I am sure that you can understand the importance of acknowledging the pain and suffering and loss of victims of history. Tiamut 09:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

• Oppose - This article is about the archealogical site, not the new moshav or Arab village. Some minor info on both of the 'newer' sites is allowed but the rest clutters up the article. --Shuki 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree completely with Shuki. And I've been to Tzippori twice - no disrespect to people to live much closer than I do, I fully admit that I've been a mere tourist - but I can promise you there is no major town or settlement within eyesight of the archaeological site. LordAmeth 23:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - The archaeological site of Tziporri is located exactly where the Arab village stood. The newer site of the Jewish Israeli town is not in the same location, but goes by the same name, and therefore deserves mention. The information of the site's history as a living Arab town prior to the expulsion of its residents in 1948 is definitely relevant to an article on the archaeological site of the same name and location. There are still people alive today who called Tziporri (in Arabic, Saffuriya) home. You can't just ignore those facts and focus on archaeology in a temporal-spatial vaccum. It's not the site's only distinguishing feature. Tiamut 16:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Shuki. Amoruso 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - unless there will be a significant amount of information added about the Arab village, I don't see why they shouldn't be merged now. All of the data on Saffuriyya is already located on Tzippori, and as it stands it fits well as another 'layer on the tel'. Tewfik^Talk 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Material on Palestinians deleted

Considering the merge discussion above, I am wondering why Gilabrand keeps deleting material related to Saffuriya's Palestinian ties. I am restoring the material deleted and would appreciate it if the points could be discussed one by one before they are summarily removed without discussion once again. Thanks. Tiamut 09:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave my reasons for each edit - which you insist on blanket reverting. The sources for this material are "Palestine Remembered" which is not recognized as a neutral academic source. There is plenty of material that remains concerning the Arab village, and I gave equal "bold" status to the Arabic name, which was not done previously. But this is not a forum for the history of how many Palestinian villages were "destroyed" by Israel. This is an article about a site that was one of the most important Jewish towns in the Galilee, and the fact that some Arabs grew vegetables there is nice, but not what makes the place notable.--Gilabrand 09:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Giving reasons in edit summaries does not constitute discussion. Your edits also deleted sourced information. I am restoring the material again. Tiamut 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tiamut, but I have to agree with Gilabrand. Saffuriya is not notable for being a Palestinian village; Tzippori is notable for being a very significant ancient Jewish town. LordAmeth 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source that supports your claim that Saffuriya is not notable for being a Palestinian village and is only notable for being a very significant ancient Jewish town. Tiamut 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it likely that any source is going to explicitly state that any town is not notable for a particular thing. Rather, the burden of proof should be on you to prove that Saffuriya is of note as a Palestinian village, more notable than the hundreds or thousands of other Palestinian villages. LordAmeth 21:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The article cites reliable sources that discuss the importance of Saffuriya to those Palestinians who were forced to leave it. This is a notable enough fact to have made appearances in mainstream newspapers like The Guardian and in journals such as the Middle East Report. These sources meet our WP:RS requirements. Even tour books mention that Tzippori was once home to thousands of Palestinians. Surely an encyclopedia should offer more in the way of history and context? Tiamut 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article looks excellent the way it is right now. It seems balanced and unbiased, and discusses both the ancient Jewish significance and the recent Palestinian history, with neither topic overshadowing the other. I hope that you agree, and we can finally settle on a version of the article. I apologize if it ever seemed that my intent was to whitewash or to eliminate references to the Palestinian population of the town - my intention, rather, was simply to see that such information was presented in an unbiased fashion, and in such a way that it did not overshadow the other aspects of the location's history. Thanks for your efforts, your understanding, and your patience. LordAmeth 13:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I carried out the merge. There was very little information, and included it all. While some level of expansion is reasonable, this isn't the place for repeating all sorts of information already found in Palestinian exodus and elsewhere. Gilabrand's current version seems fine, as all he removed was the "400" bit. Tewfik^Talk 18:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the information of the 400 other villages. According to Ilan Pappe and others it was 531, and the discussion of the details would burden the introduction unnecessarily. I did reinsert the adjective Palestinian to describe the village, which Gilabrand also removed in that edit. It's an undisputed fact, mentioned by the source and it's good to clarify for the reader. Tiamut 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That is fair enough. Tewfik^Talk 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to delete that bit.--Gilabrand 20:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no point debating a historical revisionist who's personal profile includes the following: "Israeli Apartheid: A Chronology" & "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist." And who believes "The Guardian" and "Palestineremembered" are legitimate sources for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.47.147 (talk) 21:44, 2008 April 15 (UTC)

Moshav Tzippori

Should this have its own article? The moshav was established in 1949 on a hilltop adjacent to where the ancient site and the Arab village were located. It has its own history, that is not covered in this article. Tiamut^talk 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Attached jpg. image contains incorrect data

Perhaps you need to attach another image of the area? The attached image is old and shows incorrect locations of other cities/ towns. Thus "Cana" is placed in an incorrect position on said map, compared to modern maps! It would be perfectly correct to keep the current map in place, if you were to point out that archaeology has since dismissed the placement shown on the old ones!69.92.23.64 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

The fresh water springs of Tzippori!

I would think that any article that discusses the importance of this city, should make some mention of the fresh water springs, that actually was the source of its importance in this area! This water source made the city a perfect place for Jewish orthodox to build Mikvas, and it was a watering station for anyone travelling from the coast to the inland lake! It was important enough for the Crusaders to stop there on their way to the disaster awaiting them at the Horns of Hattin!69.92.23.64 (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Ronald l. Hughes

map

Does anyone know where there is a map showing the boundary of the national park? Thanks. Zero^talk 13:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Archaeological evidence supports the idea that Jesus did most of his business there while living in Nazareth"

What evidence would that be? Wooden tables and chairs he made, signed "Jesus," found in Sepphoris, or what?? Orlando098 (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A business card on parchment saying "Jesus, we are good carpenters!" was found. Don't be skeptical. Zero^talk 15:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Very funny --jae (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

TV shows

"Tzippori of the time of Jesus was a large, Roman-influenced city and hotbed of political activism. Archaeological evidence supports the idea that Jesus, while living in Nazareth, did most of his business in Tzippori." This is cited to a TV show. You should have gotten a transcript of the show and looked for the original papers by any archaeologists who had sound bytes on this subject. Mass media doesn't understand science very well and sound bytes from scientists are necessarily quoted out of context which all too easily can be distorted. I've said the same on other pages so don't feel insulted. 4.249.63.223 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from User:Peterd2010

After Herod's death in 4 BCE, the Jewish inhabitants of Tzippori rebelled against Roman rule and the Roman army moved in under the command of the Roman Governor in Syria, Varus. Completely destroying the city, the Roman army sold many of its inhabitants into slavery. Herod's son, Herod Antipas was made Tetrarch, or governor, in 1 CE, and proclaimed the city's new name to be Autocratis, or the "Ornament of the Galilee." "Autocratis" doesn't mean "Ornament of the Galilee". It is Greek (auto-krates, literally "self power", "autocrat"). In this context it means "self rule" and refers to it as an autonomous city. User:Peterd2010

pro-priest slanted language? in around-Jesus time history and revolt

The new population was loyal to Rome. what does 'new population' mean ?

The pro-Roman inhabitants of Tzippori did not join the resistance against Roman rule in the Great Jewish Revolt of 66 CE. Rather, they signed a pact with the Roman army and opened the gates of the city to the Roman general Vespasian upon his arrival in 67 CE[7] They were rewarded for this allegiance by having their city spared from the destruction suffered by many other Jewish cities, including Jerusalem.

this language looks slanted to me. using the Ilan Ziv 'Searching for EXile' -film I re-worded the section and it seems to me the section can assume quite quickly a very different aspect. it seems to me the Jerusalem caste could be viewed as a kind of Jewish-Taliban - priest fanatics, and just because Sepphoris didn't like being told what to do by this lot that doesn't make them traitors . IT seems a kind of Zionist pov is choosing pov-tendentious language. 'rewarded' and such - a kind of extremist-sneer accompanies that language. which is fine I guess if its RS sourced but all the sources seenmed to be a site called Zionist education or something like that. Anyway maybe I've bent the stick too far the other way now with my edits - I don't think so - but the section ibelieve was pov and can we have RS sources - to books by historians , published by University Presses ideally, not to Zionist web sites throughout the section. Sayerslle (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you're reading into that passage what you want to read into it. Also, I regret to inform you that there is no contest running to see how many times the word "Zionist" can be worked into a single passage.--172.129.82.48 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Colonial or Imperialist

I put "colonial" in when referring to the Arab, Ottoman, and Islamic authorities because their rules over those areas does fit the definition of colonialism. It means the invasion of a country/region you are not originally native to and the spread of that foreign culture over the region. That is what the Arabian tribes did in the 7th century conquests, so the term applies.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not correct. "Colony" has a particular meaning in geopolitics that refers to a type of region that is administered by a power but not part of the territory of that power. However, Palestine was incorporated into the Ottoman Empire and became just as much a part of it as Anatolia was. That is imperialism, not colonisation. Zero^talk 11:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The term 'colony' refers to a community populated exclusively by persons whose origins lay outside the lands in which the community is located. The Arab presence in the Levant is both colonial and imperial. Imperial because these Arab colonies were the project of the Mohammedan Empire and, later, the Ottoman Empire. The term 'imperial' is most appropriately used when referring to the powers of empire. The term 'colonial', of course, refers to the transfer of a population from its place of origin to a second, foreign place. Such a transfer is usually facilitated by an empire. I hope you found this explanation helpful. Gilad55 (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Very helpful, very unfortunate. You seem to thoroughly approve of everything Oren Yiftachel in his Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006 regards as a deplorable. In fact your definition is not valid as a historical norm, but fits exactly the peculiar circumstances of Israel's politics of demography. ('One common type of colonial settler society has been described as the 'pure settlement colony' which ha been shown to be most appropriate to the Israeli-Zionist case' (p.13)) It translates into writing 'colonial' all over wiki articles on Israel, both within its frontiers and in its 'colonial expansion' in more recent times. Seriously, your definition falls to pieces not only because it ignores Zero's precise distinction, but also because no country conquered by the Arabs (or by the Romans, Germanic tribes, the Russians, the Chinese, the ancient Greeks, the Turks, etc.etc.etc.) was populated by 'communities' constituted by 'persons whose origins lay outside the lands in which the community is located.' Most Turks, most Hungarians, most Egyptians, did not 'immigrate' as Turks, Arabs, or Finno-Ugrians into their lands: they are indigenous peoples who absorbed the imperial language of the new elite as the majoritarian indigenous peoples mingled with the military and administrative castes. 'Racially pure' communities, those that repudiate 'mixing' with the indigenous population, are extremely rare in history. Nishidani (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Gilad55, Even if your definition is correct (which it isn't), it doesn't apply to Palestine. To take the Ottoman period as an example, there was never a period in the history of Palestine when the Turkish population of Palestine was more than a handful. Even in the military only the officer class had a high proportion of Turks and there is no evidence that many stayed on when their service finished. The Turks did not come in and establish their own communities. They took over the administration and ruled the existing population. "Regarding the Muslim community, despite the presence of a very small minority of North Africans and Indians, the great majority of the Sunni Muslims in Jerusalem were of Arab origin, although there was also a small community of Turkish officials who shared this religious affiliation with the local population." (Mazza, Jerusalem from the Ottomans to the British, p. 40) That's imperialism. (However, I'd be happy with text that avoids both words, provided it does not present myths.) Zero^talk 09:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you need either word. The Arabs conquered Palestine, like so many before them, Egyptians, Ibri, Jews, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Crusaders. By singling out the Arabs as being distinctively 'colonial'/'imperial' these edits implicitly suggest that the resident traditional population is alien to the land, the subtext being that Jews aren't. That is pushing an ideological and political construct. Secondly, the non-Islamic (at the time)bedouin tribes were the spearhead for that conquest. The pre-existing populations all spoke languages continuous with the semitic tongue of the Arab leaders, and indeed the fiercest resistance to the conquest came from Bedouin Syro-Palestinian Christian tribes like the Banū Judhām and Banū Ghassān. There were stronger social affinities between the Arabian tribes and the indigenous peoples in Syria/Palestine than there were between the pre-existing elite from Byzantine and the native populations: the dividing line was not ethnic, but sectarian. All this is lost in the kind of revanchist POV pushing we get in attempts to introduce the concept of 'colonies' from the modern world of global imperialism.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are two definitions of the term 'colony':

col·o·ny ˈkälənē/ noun 1. a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country. synonyms: settlement, dependency, protectorate, satellite, territory, outpost, province a group of people living in colony, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors. 2. a group of people of one nationality or ethnic group living in a foreign city or country.

As you can see, the Arab homes and villages that sprang up in Palestine after the Mohammedan conquest of Jerusalem during the 7th century AD fit these definitions. Arabs not only colonized Palestine, but Egypt, Syria and Lebanon as well. Gilad55 (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

All I can see is a failure to familiarize yourself with the history of human communities in Palestine, in the 7th century CE and throughout history. Of course, you have also managed to sidestep, a dozen comments that showed earlier why your opinion is radically inaccurate.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, Are you denying that Arabs constitute a majority in Palestine and that their forebears arrived as colonists under the banner of the Mohammedan Empire? Gilad55 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

I don't deny anything. I read history books, and report what they say of events, people and places covered by the articles I work. Arabs were in Palestine before the invasion, significant numbers also settled there. The population learnt Arabic. That does not mean the population consists of immmigrant Arabs, anymore than Hungarians, who speak a language brought to that country by a a central Asian military elite, by that linguistic conversion became Finno-Ugric. They are overwhelmingly descendants of indigenous Europeans.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. There were no Arab settlements in Palestine prior to the 7th century AD. This is evidenced by archeology and true histories. We are not discussing whether Arabs set foot in Palestine before the Mohammedan conquest, but whether Arab colonization of Palestine occurred before that conquest. Jerusalem was an open city under Byzantine rule and Arabic speakers no doubt passed through Palestine, but was Arabic the lingua Franca in Palestine before the 7th century? The answer is no. Was Arabic the lingua Franca in Palestine after the 7th century? The answer is an emphatic yes. Such a change could only have been brought about by a large influx of Arabic speakers.

Regarding your second point, was that written in English? Gilad55 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

You make assertions about languages, but you can't support them. You play with words like "Arab", but you can't define it. You ignore the process of Arabization. You want the article to make some sort of point that pleases you, but that is not the purpose of articles. Actually the process of Islamization, Arabization and language shift is one of active disagreement between scholars, partly because there is very little primary source material. "Opinions of scholars concerning the pace and extent of Islamization in Palestine during the early Muslim period vary. It is clear that in Palestine there was no Islamization as a result of mass sedentarization of newly arrived Muslims in Amsar or garrison towns, as was the case in Iraq and in Egypt. It is known, however, that Arab tribes, such as Lakhm, Judham and 'Amila were living in different areas of Palestine already from the Roman period and probably converted to Islam in the period following the conquest; others, like Kinda, were already Muslim when they arrived." (Milka Levy-Rubin, New Evidence relating to the Process of Islamization in Palestine in the Early Muslim Period, JESHO 43,3). Two contradictions to your claims in there. King Faisal famously told Chaim Weizmann that the Palestinians are not Arabs at all! But isn't this article about Tzippori? Zero^talk 07:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Z, there's a very good book out just recently on all this (with useful tables at the end on Arab villages, and an opening chapter on the paradigm shift which shows all the errors (digging through the Arab 'rubble' as though not interesting: the apparent slowness of the shift in the majoritarian Christian country that was Palestine towards Arabization; the myth of a collapse which arcaeology now dismisses, etc.). See (if you haven't, which I doubt) Gideon Avni,The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach, OUP 2014 . Of course, what Gilad says is a concatenation of garbled clichés.Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Islamization only accelerated four centuries later. The population Saladin's armies met was predominantly Christian. Only after his conquest did that process make a radical transformation. p.336. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 07:37, 2014 April 29 (UTC)

It looks like a must-have book. But it costs $150, damn. Zero^talk 08:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Inter-library loan, or, better borrow it. Some department there is bound to have it on order, since it does look indispensable.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if Gilad needs it, all he need read is p.335.'Isolated examples do not indicate a massive penetration by Arab tribes into Palestine during the seventh and eighth centuries. . .The establishment of new settlements in the rural sector that were visibly Islamic was relatively rare. The Muslim population was confined to the 'Umayyad palaces' in the Jordan Valley, eastern Jordan and around the Sea of Galilee, the ribat fortresses along the Mediterranean costs, and farms in the north-western Negev. . .One area where the infiltration of a foreign population is unequivocal is the 'Arabah Valley, where several farms employed the qanat irrigation system...'Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

We all seem to agree that an Arab colonization of Palestine occurred. Of course it began with perhaps only a handful of settlers preceded by a military conquest. Such is the pattern a nation follows when it colonizes another nation. Your arguments appear to have evolved from "Arabs were always there" to "the Arab colonization of Palestine was gradual". Well, I suppose that's something. And yes, I can define the term 'Arab'. Arabs are a people who originated in the Arabian Peninsula. After spreading from the Arabian Peninsula, Arabs became a pan-ethnic people whose language and culture often subsumed the languages and cultures Arabs came into contact with. Gilad55 (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

You have failed completely to read what others wrote, and the evidence they cited. So no one agrees with you.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 01 May 2014

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Tzippori → Sepphoris – Acording to Wikipedia policy, articles about places should use the common English name if there is one. In this case Sepphoris wins by a mile, see ngrams for example, notice how the current spelling scores last even of the Hebrew transliterations. Zero^talk 12:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support In fact it is a violation of our naming conventions, and is the one exception I can think of which seems to support what Israel Katz advocated back in 2009 and which briefly someone, if I recall, tried to introduce onto wiki. We don't write Yafo (Jaffa), or Yerushalayim (Jerusalem): we shouldn't write Tzippori for Sepphoris.Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Same for Beersheba, Nazareth and Haifa, all of which have different official Hebrew transliterations vs the common English name. This article should be consistent. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom, Nishidani and Oncenawhile. ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support - by overwhelming use in WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support - per nom, Huldra (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support - According to the ngrams chart, "Tzippori" wasn't used until the late 1950s, is the least common name and Sepphoris is the most common name used. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:38, 5 May 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sepphoris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060414075619/http://www.carnegiemuseums.org:80/cmag/bk_issue/1998/sepoct/feat3.htm to http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/1998/sepoct/feat3.htm

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sepphoris. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024013757/http://www.jalili48.com/pub/EN_ShowGallary.asp?GName=What_Remained_of_the_destroyed&SuName=Saffuryeh to http://www.jalili48.com/pub/EN_ShowGallary.asp?GName=What_Remained_of_the_destroyed&SuName=Saffuryeh

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

4th paragraph of 1st section is broken

It ends in mid-sentence! I have no idea what was meant to be here, but it's broken. (To those more expert than I: please be civil while you fix it.) Acwilson9 (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Transition to Muslim period: totally unclear

The only source so far, the 2014 Haaretz article quoting Dr. Mordechai (Motti) Aviam of the Kinneret Institute for Galilean Archaeology, isn't at all convincing.

• What happened with the settlement at the end of the Byzantine period, between c. 4th c. - 634? It seems that the Jews moved elsewhere, but did non-Jews remain?
• Did the Arabs really start from scratch, and "the village of Saffuriya started rising on the ruins of the Jewish capital" (Haaretz article)?
  

This is imaginable and a common occurrence at the end of a period, but considering the tenor of the article, a better source is needed. Not one with the opposite tendency either though :)

• What does it mean that "[i]ts main development was during the Mamluk period (13th to the 16th centuries)", was it bigger, or maybe more important, than in modern times? Or is that just in comparison to the 7th-12th centuries? Arminden (talk • contribs)

Aviam is a specialist on this topic so finding his professional writings would be good. Another source is the book "The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine" by Gideon Avni. Avni says that the main settlement area shifted south, maybe as a result of the 749 earthquake, and "The fact that considerable settlement in Sepphoris continued throughout the Early Islamic period is supported by historical sources which mention the town and list it among the settlements in Palestine which maintained a mint and produced their own coins.It seems that the area of Early Islamic Sepphoris was reduced in size compared with the Byzantine city, but it continued to function until the eleventh century." (p217) Zero^talk 05:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. The Haaretz journalist sounds tendentious, he tainted what he got from Aviam. Yep, Avni wrote a very important book, I don't have it (and at $150-200 I won't go for it) but I'm following articles about findings mainly from the south and the picture becomes more detailed by the day. Maybe you can add to the article? If not, can I use all what you have written above, not just the literal quote? I've prepared the reference, but I can't access pp. 215-17, so it's a bit of a cheat:

<ref name=Avni>{{cite book |last= Avni |first= Gideon |title= The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach |page= 217 |publisher=[[OUP Oxford]] |series= Oxford Studies in Byzantium |year= 2014 |isbn= 0199684332 |url= https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Byzantine_Islamic_Transition_in_Pale/ZLucAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA217 |access-date= 8 January 2022}}</ref> Arminden (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: Check your email. Zero^talk 23:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

History up until Hellenistic period

We only have a vague reference to some Iron Age archaeological findings, which is almost taken back by the next sentence stating "Actual occupation and building work can be verified from the 4th century BCE". The Jewish sources cannot be taken as historical proof, as none looks even remotely contemporary: the Hebrew Bible itself makes no mention of the city, there are some "traditions", and they are referenced to Mishnah and Talmud passages, which are more recent by many, many centuries than any possible Iron Age (Israelite). Even mentioning a Canaanite Zippori on that base is a joke.

The Hebrew Bible can sometimes be used as a source, the Mishnah and the Talmud by themselves hardly ever.

Which leaves us with the question: when and who founded Zippori, the ancient city documented throughout classical antiquity? What do the researchers say? Arminden (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't find anything pre-Roman. Zero^talk 00:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Roman & Byz. periods in one section

Hi Mariamnei, how are you?

The issue with separating the Early Roman from the Late R. & Byz. periods is often, as here too, that some processes can't be divided along those lines. Here for instance we have the issues connected with the Jewish presence and even majority, now falling under the late, 2nd section, but concerning both periods:

1. "As late as the third-fourth centuries, Sepphoris is believed to have been settled by one of the twenty-four priestly courses...".
2. "...between the rule of Herod Antipas and the end of the Byzantine era...".

Herod Antipas ruled betw. 4 BCE - 39 CE, so Early Roman: his reign is mentioned in the later section, so too late, combining almost 1.5 centuries of Early Roman period with 5 c. of LR & Byz. period.

When I encounter such problems, my first attempt is to keep a wider time bracket - here "Rom. & Byz. periods" together -, place under this heading the topics (paragraphs) which straddle both subsets, and only then create two subsets, like you did, containing only the topics specific to each of them. If I can't easily solve the problem this way, I leave it to a wider section, where the paragraphs are ordered chronologically where possible, with those concerning longer intervals at the most logical, common sense position.

Another, more minor issue: "Herodian and Early Roman periods" doesn't work, as the Herodian period is part of the Early Roman period.

I'll adapt according to what I wrote, but pls feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong. Your impulse would have led to an improvement anyway. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your feedback, @Arminden! I tried to simplify things with this structure, but I see your points. The Herodian period is indeed part of the ER period, and I agree that many facts are relevant to the broader Roman-Byzantine period. Feel free to adjust it as you see fit. I’ll continue thinking about how to improve it. Thanks again! :) Mariamnei (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)