Talk:Yibna

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article was nominated for merging with Yavne on 20 July 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Palestine High‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Operation Barak

Just to clarify my edit: the village was not taken during Operation Barak, but rather in June 1948, well after Operation Barak ended. An earlier attempt to take the village was done in preparation for Operation Pleshet, which is also well after Operation Barak. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Operation Barak page, you will see otherwise.--Sreifa (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the information in that article is unclear, and also there are numerous sources that clearly state that Yibna was still in Arab hands when the Egyptians invaded. Yibna was captured after a short fight on June 4, 1948, just after Operation Pleshet (as, ironically, the Operation Barak article states). If you are interested, I can send you some relevant materials. I believe the confusion stems from the vague guidelines of Operation Barak's objectives—therefore, some sources seem to consider Operation Barak to be an umbrella term for all Givati military action from May to June 11, 1948. This is incorrect, and there are a number of sources that define Operation Barak lasting between May 4 and May 15, 1948. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morris (p259) says June 5. Zero^talk 13:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is probably more accurate. The operation started in the evening of June 4 and ended at daytime on June 5. The only shots that were fired between Israelis and Arabs were during the night of June 4–5, although there was a friendly fire incident when the Irgun battalion (57th) believed the other battalion to be Arabs (but no one was hurt). Source: Ayalon, Givati Against the Egyptian Invader, pp. 146–147. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

After the debate above regarding "Operation Barak", the end-result is that there is NOTHING in this entry about the time-period between 1946 and "after" 1948. Can anyone knowledgeable fill in this period??
Also why is there NO mention of the Crusader period, which obviously happened between the 9th century and the next date mentioned 1596...

Shmuel A. Kam (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the following "Nominated for Deletion" section be deleted? Obviously it wasn't in the end? What is standard procedure in such cases?

File:Old Yavne.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Old Yavne.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

railway

A railway line runs adjacent to the village on the south and east. I think is a part of the Lyyda-Rafa track built by the British in 1918, but I don't have a good source. If you have a good source, please add it and delete the current mention of railways. Zero^talk 16:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The City's pre-Arab History is Missing

This article needs to be expanded, since it does not mention the city's pre-Arab history. There is much that can be added in this area. Davidbena (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mention of Roman, Grecian and Jewish history

On 27 January 2021, unilateral action was taken to remove from this article two sections which briefly covered the town's Roman, Grecian and Jewish history, as shown here in this edit. While there can be no doubt that the main emphasis is on the town's more recent Arab history, is there no place to add in this article a brief account of the site's more ancient history? Comments are welcome here, so as to reach a consensus.Davidbena (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. This site is also known as Tel Yavne and the history should cover all periods of the site. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Greco-Roman history should be here ... ridiculously obviously. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name query

I have a naming query or something of an RM prelim if you like in that I can't help wonder if this page might not be better hosted at one of the sites more famous historical names. Polling the names that I have so far gathered are most prevalent in history on Ngrams, it appears that the Roman-era Jamnia appears to set itself apart as the long-term historical favourite, much as with Ascalon being commonly known as Ascalon. The only caveat to this is that Jamnia is the namesake of the Council of Jamnia, which appears to be a much discussed event, so the Ngrams trends here might be being led astray by this. Still, it remains a very strong historical name. "Yibna/Yubna" is of course simply a phonetic drift away from Jamnia. The other names that stand out are Jabneh (the Biblical transliteration) and Ibelin, the crusader name, which appears to be derived from the name of an old hill name Abella, but connects to little else. The results for Yibna/Yubna are somewhat disappointing, but I note from the Ottoman section of the page that the pronunciation, spelling or simply transliteration of this was somewhat fluid, with different accounts also producing Ebneh, Yebna and Jebna ... so it is possible that the phonetic drift at the time was less than the 20th-century spelling of Yibna/Yubna make out. Jebna in particular would appear little changed from Jabneh, but it is possible that whoever translated the Ottoman lists simply transliterated the 'y' in Arabic as a 'j', ironically mimicking how 'Iamnia' came to be understood as 'Jamnia' by way of the phenomenon of the Latin consonant of 'y' to modern 'j' shift in the middle ages. In this case, the Arabic has simply never drifted far from the original Talmudic 'Yabne', which again, Jabneh is not very far removed from ... all of which begins to make me lean towards Jabneh as the possible best combination in terms of both literary prevalence and the best overarching link between the different names past and present. Jabneh is incidentally the name that Britannica comes to rest at. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am supportive of any of those suggestions. Doesn’t need to be the current archaeological site name, or the name of its last inhabitants – the name with the most long-term significance is probably best. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Alaexis_¿question? 13:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Should Reflect Sources and Text of Article

The reverted language in the summary comes directly from the source and the article. It says:

"Yibna was infiltrated by Iraqi soldiers in March 1948, and battles there with the Haganah left two dozen dead. By the end of May, most of the population of Yibna had fled to Isdud. The village was almost entirely deserted when it was taken by Israeli forces on 5 June 1948."

The language clearly is a summary of the main text, which says

"In mid-March 1948, a contingent of Iraqi soldiers moved into the village. In a Haganah response on March 30, two dozen villagers were killed.... On 27 May, ... most of the population of Yibna fled to Isdud.... On 5 June, when Israeli troops arrived, they found the village almost deserted..."

The body of the article provides more details, as it should.

What the article does not say and is found nowhere in the source the summary language that says:

"Yibna was taken by Israeli forces on 4 June 1948, and was depopulated during the military assault and expulsion."

Such summary language implies that Israel was the first military in the region when it was not and that the Israeli army caused most of the depopulation, which the sourced main article contradicts. The truth is more nuanced than that.

Summaries should not state facts that are not sourced and not in the main text. Nor should they state or imply events that didn't happen. I stand by my revision.GreekParadise (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced your text with a simpler formulation based on the source. The source mentions Iraqi volunteers, but does not tie them to either the population leaving or to battles with the Haganah. Better leave it for the body. Also, the two dozen villagers were killed in a "Haganah reprisal" according to the source and your text that implies it was during a battle with the Iraqis is entirely unsupported, as well as omitting the identity of the dead. Still missing is "Giv‘ati was ‘interested in the evacuation’ of the large village of Yibna, as the official history put it." (Morris) which sets the scene. The source is quite clear that the depopulation was intentional and was caused first by the conquest of nearby villages creating panic and secondly by direct expulsion. Zero^talk 02:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your sentence "the remainder were expelled by Israeli forces after the town was taken on June 5" which falsely implies that "Israeli forces" were the main impetus for the depopulation of the town.

If you remove the truth that Iraqi soldiers entered the town first and caused the initial impetus for its depopulation -- ostensibly on the grounds that that's "too much detail" for the reader in the summary -- then you must equally remove the tiny expulsion of a few elderly people after 99% of the village was depopulated. Otherwise, the tail wags the dog.

Wikipedia should not have a POV that keeps out major history and inserts minor things in order to blame Israel and avoid blame for Iraq. So I think we must either tell the entire story in the summary or none of it. It would be wrong describe a "tail" that caused a few to leave without also describing the "dog" that caused thousands to leave.

Let me give you a non-controversial example to illustrate my point. Let's say a hurricane kills 5000 people in a town of 5023 and the other 23 are ordered to live by authorities who want to raze the destroyed town. If you said "the remaining inhabitants the town were ordered to leave by authorities" without mentioning it was destroyed and mostly depopulated by the hurricane, that would leave readers with an entirely false impression as to what happened.

The body of the text explains what happened in detail. Let's let it do its work and leave out partial histories in the summary that emphasize minor things while refusing to mention major ones. If the goal is not POV but truth, this formulation cannot be justified.GreekParadise (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero has already explained the lay of the sources in his comment above. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert or edit this paragraph further until you've read page 259 of the source. Wikipedia does not allow for opinion. If you don't believe it accurately reflects the source, please state why and how.GreekParadise (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed that the Iraqis arrived in mid-March and the majority of the population fled on May 27, more than two months later. Your attempt to associate these two events is simply not supported by the source. Morris is entirely clear that the exodus was due to the conquest of two nearby villages, which was a common reason for such events. Morris also does not say that only a few old people were expelled on June 5 when the town on conquered. He says that only a few were found in the town, which is different. Then he says "The sand dunes south of the town were covered with refugees fleeing toward Isdud; Giv‘ati artillery fired at them ‘to increase [their] panic’." So in fact Morris says that many residents (Iraqi soldiers wouldn't be called "refugees") left then. Zero^talk 12:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]