Talk:Tzippori

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Tzippori is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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'. TewfikTalk 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. TewfikTalk 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. TewfikTalk 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.