Jump to content

Talk:Petah Tikva

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

Removal of history to Mulabbes

[edit]

User:רמרום: why have you removed the early history to Mulabbes? It is quite short, just 6-7 k. It seems to me that you did this without any previous discussion? In other Israeli cities the pre-Jewish history is not removed, see eg Afula and Kiryat Ata, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huldra, Mulabbes is not Petah Tikva, but a different settlement with its own history, for which I created a separate article. I followed previous examples of Ascalon/Majdal 'Asqalan/Ashkelon. It seems to me worthy of creating separate pages for Kufritta and al-'Affula, too. רמרום (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:רמרום: Well, Ashkelon(52k) is a bit different, for it succeeded several places,(Al-Jura (20k), and Al-Majdal, Askalan (which presently is just a re-dir to Ashkelon), while Ascalon (65k) is about the ancient place.
When is comes to Petah Tikva,(55k) there is no such diversity. Neither is it for Kufritta and al-'Affula. (In addition to Afula being just 39k, and Kiryat Ata 24 k.)
And if you want to take out the pre-Jewish history; where do you draw the line? Do you want to split Sha'ar HaAmakim (15k) in 2, too? And Merhavia (kibbutz) (16k)? And scores of others.
I suggest we merge the Mulabbes article into this one, again. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Huldra,
I reviewed the removal to Mulabbes again, and I do think that it is justified for two reasons: 1) Mulabbes has its own separate history, and it deserves to stand as an independent entity (historically, an Arab village, not a Zionist colony), 2) the Petah Tikva article (focused on the Zionist moshava) does not loose the big picture, as the pre-Jewish history is well summarized, overall, and the interested reader an click a link and see it in full:
"Tell Mulabbes, an archaeological mound in modern Petah Tikva, is an important archaeological site from the Yarkon River basin, with habitation remains from the Roman, Byzantine, Early Islamic, Crusader, Mamluk and Late Ottoman periods. The place was inhabited sporadically, and was known in Arabic as Mulabbis."
Moreover, this is part of a wider (reviewed) move that I've initiated of creating pre-Zionist Palestinian villages and archaeological sites with their own separate entities/articles, for example: Jindas our of Ginaton, Deiran out of Rehovot, Subtara, Kafr Jinnis out of Airport City railway station, Beit Qufa out of Beit Nehemia etc. This move has been well received, and helped give these sites and villages their own persona as independent historical entities without subservience to modern settlements established by another people over their remains. רמרום (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, Thank you for starting Beit Qufa, Kafr Jinnis, Jindas, Subtara; I have some (minor) issues with some of them, but I'll take that up on their talk-pages.
  • About Mulabbis: Where to begin? Let start with your last statements:
  • "This move has been well received" -Where? I cannot see that anyone even have noticed these articles?
  • "and helped give these sites and villages their own persona as independent historical entities without subservience to modern settlements established by another people over their remains" No. If you wanted to hide the long non-Jewish history of Petah Tikva, you would fork it out to a Mulabbis-article. The Mulabbis -article have gotten ~70-130 views pr month, while Petah Tikva gets 15000-20000 views per month.
  • And where is the source for Tell Mulabbes? The sources are all (AFAIK) for "Mulabbes", or Khirbat Mulabbis?
  • And you haven't even bothered to move the sources over: a reader of the Mulabbes-article is given no info about Röhricht, Delaville Le Roulx, Clermont-Ganneau, etc....as they are still in *this* article!
  • The different redirect for Mulabbes still redirect to this article, too
  • Since this forking was done without discussion, I will undo it -for the above mentioned reasons. If you want to split is, then please take it up on talk first, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Huldra,
    I will undo your last unilateral change, during ongoing discussions.
    The separation of the aforementioned pages has taken place 4 months ago without objection, and forms a stable version.
    The page has been reviewed by User:Rosiestep.
    There exists separate, extensive pages, for Mulabbes in other language wikis too, in Arabic, Hebrew for example. That, as well as separate archeological papers about Mulabbes, showing notability. In those publication (especially the archaeological ones, the site is called Tel Mulabbis - for example here)
    The pre-Jewish history of Mulabbis is not hidden at Petah Tivkah page, as it is included in a paragraph dedicated to pre-Jewish history of the site. More can be added.
    The 70-100 views each month are from people interested in Mulabbes, and not Petah Tikva, showing public interest.
    If you still holds to your opinion, and wishes to reverse this move, please bring it to vote.
    Cheers, רמרום (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear User:Huldra,
    Could you assist with solving the redirect issue, and I would like to work with you on bettering those articles you've mentioned.
    Cheers
    רמרום (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry you are being so agressive about this. The Mulabbis' history had been in this article for 5 years; you took it out without consulting anyone. And of course User:Rosiestep reviewed it; she had no way of knowing that you had just removed all non-Jewish history from Petah Tikva, as you created Mulabbes with the edit-line "Creating a page for historical/archaeological site of Mulabbis, Israel"! (Also: you have reintroduced all the red links in the Bibliography(!) <facepalm>)
  • And where in the article you linked to is Mulabbis called Tel Mulabbis?

Tell is typically uses for much older stuff than Mulabbis, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huldra,
- I don't think summarizing archeological/Palestinian site info to be "removing all non-Jewish history from Petah Tikva". Even in the current version this history is referred to.
-Petah Tikva is not Mulabbes, just as Petah Tikva is not Fajja, or Al-Mirr which it later absorbed. The same holds for Tel Aviv, which according to your approach should absorb the articles for Jaffa, Al-Mas'udiyya, Al-Shaykh Muwannis, Salama, Jaffa, Jammasin, and Sarona (colony) which it occupied and annexed.
-Tell Mulabbis is reffered to on p. 91 of the article, "Tell Mulabbis is situated on a low hill 37 metres above sea level, about 1.25 km south of the Nahr al-ʿAwja (Yarkon River), ", and also in Hebrew language publications which I can cite here. A "tell" is a term for ancient mounds, used for ancient site throughout the Middle East, including Palestine.
- I will fix the Mulabbis citation issues in the next few days.
-Is article length a criterion for inclusion?
רמרום (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Petah Tikva was founded on Mulabbis land, it says so clearly in the "The Abu Hameds of Mulabbis: an oral history of a Palestinian village depopulated in the Late Ottoman period"- article: "the residents of Mulabbis sold most of their lands to Anton al-Tayyan and Salim al-Kassar, merchants from Jaffa.[23] In turn, both sold the land to the founders of Petah Tikva."
Petah Tikva has later expanded onto other land; true. But Mulabbis was where it started,
And I don't understand why you mention Tel Aviv? It wasn't founded on long-established land? AFAIK it was founded on some sand-dunes? Huldra (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tel Aviv was founded on Jaffa's land, so we may incorporate those articles as well.רמרום (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to merge. Under this situation, the stable status quo (the articles being separate) should be retained until a consensus otherwise develops. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Mulabbes into this, Petah Tikva,-article. It was been a part of this article (since 2019), until a user removed it into its own article 4 months ago. The Mulabbis article is short, just 6-7 k text + equal for refs, as Petah Tikva is 48k presently. Huldra (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for the reasons explained above.
רמרום (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a problem with an stand alone article on Mulabbes. It should be called Mulabbes (& not Tell Mulabbes, though it should include a section on the tell). Tiamut (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add the spelling of Mulabbes should be Mulabbis, as that is the most common spelling in English for both the village/site & the tell. Mulabbes is more commonly used in English as alt transliteration of mulabbes, an arabic word for sweets. Tiamut (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, two different places with different histories. Galamore (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on the fence. In the past I have supported articles about Palestinian villages that later became Israeli municipalities merging if the two places were substantially the same place at different times in their history. Basically, the split should happen when either there's a very clear delineation between the stories, or there's overflow from the container, ie the article has gotten far too long to be handled inline in a single file (analogy to editing a piece of code in an editor, and not to being literally in line physically). So, in this case, the operative question is, do we have a New Amsterdam, a Byzantium, where the prehistory of the place is actually a separate sequence in history with a separate storyline, or do we have essentially a continuous occupancy. Disambiguation of the separate aspects has become considerably more common on Wikipedia over time, with the tolerance of things that would have been WP:MERGE candidates due to WP:POVFORK or other largely tolerated, and this approach has few downsides that I can determine. It neatly compartmentalizes the topic, but the question here is again, is there a substantial sourced prehistory or more of a footnote. Therefore I'm going to just sound a note of caution on merging the articles. See also the discussion below by the merge nominator which tells me that the rationale for merge might not be totally well-founded. Andre🚐 22:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal has been open for well over 30 days. I do not think a formal closure was requested. However, does anyone want one to clarify the outcome, or can we assume it did not succeed? It seems pretty clear to me that it did not succeed, but since I commented, my opinion isn't a closure. Andre🚐 20:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 support and 2 oppose, the splitting off was done without any discussion; lets see if this passes first, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 and 2 with no other irregularities or equal weight of argument would be a no-consensus. This is the discussion, so that motion doesn't seem relevant to me. We can certainly leave the discussion open if you think more discussion would be helpful, but I suggest it may not be. Even if we request closure now, it won't probably be closed immediately, because there's usually some lag time due to the backlog. So, do I understand correctly that you'd like for me to request closure because you believe the outcome is not clear enough as it is? Andre🚐 21:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For closer, ultimately where I'm landing is to Oppose the merge on WP:NOTMERGE#2 Andre🚐 02:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

revert

[edit]

User:Andrevan: how can you justify calling it "Tell Mulabbes", bases on an article called "A short history of Mulabbis"? AFAIK, there isn't a single article about a "Tell Mulabbes", there are articles about "Mulabbis" and "Khirbet Mulabbis" but not "Tell Mulabbes", Huldra (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As your diff shows, you modified the text which was sourced to "A short history of Mulabbis (Petah Tikva, Israel)" and replaced it with unsourced text that doesn't appear. The source states, the history of Tell Mulabbis (in modern Petah Tikva). As a key archaeological site in the Yarkon River basin, it was inhabited during the Roman, Byzantine, Early Islamic, Crusader, Mamluk and Late Ottoman periods. That is paraphrased pretty much directly in the article. You added the text, "an Arab Palestinian town," changing the meaning, chronological order, and is not found on that source as such, making it WP:SYNTH. Andre🚐 23:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andrevan: I admit, I could have added a few more sources (Guerin, Socin, PEF, Hartman presently removed to the Mulabbis-article, but that is no excuse for you re-introduceing "Tell Mulabbes", when even Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel call their articles Petah Tiqwa, Kh. Mulabbis or Petah Tiqwa (Mulabbis), Huldra (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I did. Andre🚐 23:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you re-introduced "Tell Mulabbes". Of course I could have used more of the sources presently in Mulabbes-article, indeed, this would not been an issue unless one editor had not insisting on removing the Arab Palestinian history from this article,Huldra (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit, as I explained with rationale, it was malformed, and not an improvement, for clear reasoning. I did not express an opinion on whatever spelling or punctuation war affects whether it is es or is. I do not know. Similarly, "Tell," just refers to an archeological mound, something that was sourced, which you removed mention of and replaced with the de novo Palestinian town which appears nowhere. It was a village, and that is addressed in the immediately subsequent sentence, is it not? And then you accuse me of introducing something that appeared in not a single article? That was sourced in this article? Andre🚐 23:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this will help. I removed the wikilink from "Tell Mulabbis" and changed the e to an i. Andre🚐 23:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still gives the impression that the Tell is more important, when the land of Petah Tikva was purchased from the indebted inhabitants of Mulabbes and is a direct continuation of that village, Huldra (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is covered in the next sentence. Andre🚐 23:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist on calling it "Tell Mulabbis", when there isn't a single article calling it that? Huldra (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I just quoted the text above which is quoted from the source, [2] Andre🚐 23:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is just one source, it does not reflect all the sources, (presently in the Mulabbis-article, Huldra (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the source in the article which you distorted and I corrected. Andre🚐 23:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that is the problem: of the 14 referenced noted in the Mulabbes-article, one editor cherry-picked -1- article to make it about the "Archaeological mound", while if you read the Mulabbes-article it is virtually all about the Ottoman period (+ little about the Crusaders/Mamluks era). Presently, what is in this article doesn't sum up the history of Mulabbes at all, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was not proper and your defense of it here is also misleading. I stand by my edit. Do not remove apparently reliable sources and apparently reliable information and replace it with de novo unsourced information. If you'd like to expand the article to talk more about the era that you want to focus on, you can do that without removing reliable information or inserting unreliable information. I really don't think there's much more to discuss about it. Andre🚐 21:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly think the present "summary" of the Mulabbes-history is a balanced summary? Huldra (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One will note that there are actually two articles and an active merge request above. It's not clear to me whether the changes you want to add belong at this article or the other article. Either way, the changes you made actually were not an improvement as I explained. If you want to make other changes keeping in mind the issues with your earlier change, your certainly may. Andre🚐 21:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wanted them merged, they were merged until a few months ago, when an editor unilaterally removed the non-Jewish history into Mulabbes, I will wait making further changes until the merge-request is resolved, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable notable person

[edit]

Under Notable people there seems to be a person who probably doesn't belong there: Noga Appel (born 2004), infamous flop, student, online troll, and granddaughter of David Appel unless I'm missing something, it looks like entering her as a notable person was done as either a joke or a form of bullying 2A02:BA0:105F:11EF:49CB:D394:DD8E:A64E (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. That's embarassing. This article has a lot of pageviews too. I apologize to the Appels. Andre🚐 20:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Petah_Tikva&oldid=1255644129"