Talk:Lifta

message: NO WP:RS sources here. Palestinian jeweley as ref ? Amoruso 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? What is wrong in having "Stillman: Palestinian Costume and Jewelry" in the ref.? Lifta was an important center for Palestinian costume-making and is mentioned in the book. (Obviously, Stillman writes nothing about, say, the military events in 1948, but surely the article should not only cover those events?) Regards, Huldra 10:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huldra, it is a pleasant change to see cultural information added to Palestine-related articles instead of the usual bloodshed and death.  Please continue.  --Zerotalk 12:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Zero, nice to hear.  I am surprised that nobody here has written about the costumes earlier; they are really, really gorgeous. Perhaps it is a reflection of the distribution of males/females on WP ;-P, Regards, Huldra 17:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past discussions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lifta. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://alcor.concordia.ca/~pal/History/Villages/lif%40vil.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230160757/http://www.moifa.org/collections/coll-textile.html to http://www.moifa.org/collections/coll-textile.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://alcor.concordia.ca/~pal/History/Villages/lif%40vil.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lifta. 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/20120212052159/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/_pcbs/jer_b5/tab02-02.aspx to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/_pcbs/jer_b5/tab02-02.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ok, do I have to start a RfC about removing the disputed  Lifta=Nephtoah from the lead, or can we agree that it should only be in the "Antiquity"-section? Huldra (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you put it like this, yes, well, why not, for the heck of it. You might loose that Rfc, you know. After all, the opinions are so far equally divided. If on the other hand you would have asked if perhaps we can reach consensus, then I would have been happy to go along with that direction as well. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m never too keen on starting a RfC, as they tend to become a number count, which is rather "dumbing down". However, I get the feeling there is no argument which will convince Davidbena  (Davidbena:  Please correct me if I’m wrong!) Huldra (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a consensus to leave it in the lead. Lifta is widely accepted as being the biblical Nephtoah.Davidbena (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus, I disagree with having it in the lead. Huldra (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

text:  @Huldra I would have agreed with you as well, and Davidbena would have had to bow to consensus. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem "bowing" to consensus. Let's see how this plays out. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC? 

message: Should the sentence "it is located on the spot of the Tanachic village "Nephtoah"" be in the lead, or should it only be in the "Antiquity"-section? Lifta  has traditionally been thought of as being on the place of Nephtoah", but newer archeological evidence  questions this, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to throw-in my "two cents" here, the problem with writing "Tanakhic" is that we forget that most people here on Wikipedia do not speak Hebrew, and are unfamiliar with the expression. Per English-Wikipedia, it is always best to use the language readily understood by English speakers. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC   

message: I corrected post-1948 settlement (the village was occupied by Jewish squatters who were there with the permission of the government until 2017 - ). The site is also a declared municipal nature reserve (though under  Israel Nature and Parks Authority for quite some time) from the 1980s, and from 2017 a declared national nature reserve. I believe the correct infobox is "protected area". It definitely is not "former Arab villages" as the place was re-occupied since by Jewish families (which left in 2017) - so it should have had the current population count (and not an historic estimate). However, since I believe this will possibly be a contentious issue - I'm raising this in the talk page prior to changing.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How is not a former Arab village if it was depopulated of its Arab residents? Anywho, I have no problem making a new article on the nature reserve, with a section here that references that. But an article on the village that was depopulated by Jewish forces is likewise appropriate. nableezy - 16:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the interim it became a Jewish village, before being abandoned and turned into a nature reserve. Places generally have one wiki entry covering all periods, even if the ingabitants changed. Some wiki articles on places have several population replacements in one article. The infobox usually covers the last inhabitants or alternatively the entire history.Icewhiz (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it though? Did Israel ever recognize a village or a moshav or a kibbutz or anything by the name of Lifta? Or were there a group of people living in buildings that were depopulated of their owners that never formed a village called Lifta according to Israel? Because this for example flat out says Lifta was never repopulated since 1948. That a number of people squatted in buildings that didnt belong to them doesnt really change that, does it? nableezy - 21:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were originally some 300 families there - until 1969-1971 (after that - just 13 (and the 2012 Haaretz source refers to this mostly depopulated sate)- I believe it was treated as an outlying neighborhood of Jerusalem - as Lifta. There were some services there. After the 1971 depop - they set up a high school in the village -  which is still called Lifta High School (despite moving out of Lifta in 2001 to the German colony).  Here's a source covering this (in Hebrew) - . Here's a recent newspaper source (Hebrew) -  - They did were hooked up the electrical and water in the 50s as a result of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi's efforts, there were synagogues, a school, a clinic, and a "Tipat halav" (which is ministry of health operated). My understanding (confirmed by coverage of court ruling here in English -  (and ) - is that the settlement was recognized and supported by the state, but residents had no deed to the property, but rather lived there with the permission (they were sent there) of the state authorities but without ownership transferred to them - this setup subsequent issues when the land became valuable (as opposed to close to worthless as it was initially) - legally this is somewhat similar to Giv'at Amal Bet - the place is recognized, there is dispute as to whether the tenants have some ownership right or "are just residing with the permission of the state" (the de-facto and the more recently de-jure status is that they need to be compensated). So no, per the state of Israel, they were not just squatters in abandoned buildings.Icewhiz (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the articles on the residents having some rights according to Israel introduce Lifta as a depopulated Palestinian village, and the one that I read (sorry I dont have the time to go through all of what you posted in English right now) says But the ILA said it still doesn't recognize Lifta residents' rights to their homes. The documents Yohanan found, it said, apply only to protected tenants - which the Lifta residents aren't. nableezy - 22:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's two separate issues - the ownership issue is interesting in its own right - but is immaterial (though the final settlement (this year) - was actually in favor of the Lifta residents) - it is not disputed that the state permitted them to live there (in property reverted to the state as per Israeli land and property laws#The 'Absentees Property Law') - the question regarding ownership was whether the state could, 20,30, 50, 70 years afterwards say - "I gave you permission up to now to live here for free (or for a rent), but enough is enough, leave within X time" (and then sell the property to whomever)... That the neighborhood was recognized by the state/municipality is evidenced by the public buildings, municipal taxes, and formal connections to water and electricity (something lacking in Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel). The question of whether this was (up to the final compensation and clearing in 2017) a recognized settlement is separate from land/house ownership (whether residents rent or own property - is immaterial usually for qualification of a group of dwellings).Icewhiz (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing - Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine to Infobox protected area 

message: I see that Nableezy and Icewhiz are doing some lead changes, and just my two cents, it's improper to have a lead with XXX was a XXX and is now a XXX. It's more stylistic to say that Lifta is now a nature preserve and was once a village. We are in the present and it makes more sense to write it as such. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem making an article on the Mei Neftoach nature reserve. This however is an article on the village that was forcefully depopulated of its residents by Yishuv forces. As such it should be introduced as said village. If you have some policy or guideline that backs up your views on why something is proper or improper Im all ears. As it stands I see an opinion, and only that. nableezy - 16:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a little unclear then. It the article it states that the village was made into a nature preserve, not necessarily a part of a nature preserve. And everything I write is my opinion. I don't need a policy to state that it makes more sense to have an "it is" as the main sentence before a "it was" sentence. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I am free to say I disagree and as you have no policy backing for your position there really isnt a need for a further response. nableezy - 16:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

text:  Jews resided in the village following the war and until 2017 (more precisely - 300 families early 50s to 1969-1971, around 13 holdouts until 2017). I will note that this was a long and ongoing legal case that received quite a bit of coverage. It is currently a declared nature reserve. This should be in the lead - usually we specify in the lead the most recent use of a place. Should we expunge the Palestinians from the lead as well, and say this was a crusader village? The place was inhabited after 1948 - it became mostly uninhabited (except for a few houses near the top - next to the road) in 1969-1971 following an Amidar compensation agreement - with the holdouts evacuating for compensation in 2017.Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see how any of that is relevant. The article Deir Yassin is not introduced with it is now the site of the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center, and in fact Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center is briefly introduced and has its own article. nableezy - 16:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was still called Lifta when inhabited by Jews. Should we say this was a Crusader village? A Mameluke village? We usually mention, in a place name, all inhabitants. This is also done with other settlements in Israel - e.g. Beit She'an which was an Arab town pre-1948. The same houses (and actually the remaining houses there today) - were houses jews lived in. It wasn't built on-top of the village (as Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center) - the village changed hands and inhabitants.Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

text:  And the nature reserve - preserves the buildings (and spring) - it isn't some new construct - the buildings and the area around them are the reserve.Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I dont see how that is really relevant. We use WP:N to determine when a topic should have a its own article, and my position is that the Arab village depopulated of its residents by Jewish forces named Lifta meets that requirement. nableezy - 17:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notable, yes. Perhaps even the flight of Lifta residents is notable as a standalone article. Maybe. But this article is about Lifta the place, and Jews moved into the houses Arabs left and kept on calling it Lifta. Into the exact same houses.Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is essentially the same discussion as in the section above. How about we pick one and go on from there? I mean we could have the same argument twice on the same page, but feel free to pick one of the sections to focus on. nableezy - 21:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Changes 

message: Walter Lever's book was not a history book but the personal memoir of a non-historian.  It is a good example of a primary source of unproven reliability that we should not use in Wikipedia. I also doubt that the citation is representative.  What about the text on page 98 about the Jewish gangs who gave up their "humanitarian scruples, and set themselves a very simple forthright aim : to force all Arabs into quitting the area. Accordingly they attacked Lifta, Romema and Sheikh Baddr over a succession of nights.  Small, fanatically brave squads of dynamiters..."?  Zerotalk 17:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking for information on the book and didnt want to remove it until I could determine it didnt meet WP:RS, so thanks Zero. nableezy - 17:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll source the sniping from elsewhere. On the Hebrew wiki this is sourced to Hebrew language sources, which seem ok (and this is not an obscure claim, it is easy to find sources), and I added Lever looking for an English language equivelant (preferred but not required for Englush wiki).Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use Hebrew sources, provided they are reliable obviously, just please also provide translations of the relevant passage per WP:NONENG. nableezy - 21:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walter Lever 

message: The current article has a photo of the village "Lifta" (Nephtoah) where the caption below it reads: "Depopulated homes on the hillside." I have suggested that the word "depopulated" be replaced with "deserted," since that is the common English word used for houses whose occupants have left either of their own volition, or who have been forcibly removed. The word "depopulated" is used instead for towns and cities; not for houses! It is, therefore, in the best interest of Wikipedia (IMHO) to improve the language style of this article whenever possible. As for the village's history, it is well known that Lifta is one of many villages formerly inhabited by an Arab population that was removed in 1947–48 because of a long history of hostilities, as mentioned already in the article's lede and elsewhere.Davidbena (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: David, David, if you read the history of the 1948 war, it is clear that the Yishuv wanted all Palestinian villages on the way to Jerusalem emptied...friendly or not. (The Deir Yassin villagers were known to be very friendly with their Jewish neighbour..they were still slaughtered). And "deserted" still imply they left voluntarily.. in translate.google.com "deserted" gives the synonyms:  "abandoned, thrown over, jilted, cast aside, neglected, stranded..." These houses weren't "cast aside". And as I said: the picture clearly shown many houses...not only one. Huldra (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, but the homed were re-occupied by Jewish refugees shortly thereafter and afterwards by immigrants. These Jewish residents abandoned (most of the village with the exception of some 13 houses) the houses some 20 years later due to poor sanitation and better housing available in the city. So, regardless of the claim above, the houses were willingly abandoned by their last residents.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That illegal Jewish  squatters left the houses, should have equal weight to its original Palestinian owners being expelled? Where else does this apply? Huldra (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  They were legally settled there by authorities, and were compensated when they left.legal determination in 2017 It is unclear as to why you would call them illegal - in fact it would seem to be a BLP vio.Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, my bad. But then... not everyone needs to go to court to settle their  status!  Huldra (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree with "deserted" as proposed by Davdbena, for 3 reasons: 1. linguistic, as per Davidbena 2. historical, as per Icewhiz 3. per Wikipedia policies and guidelines to use neutral wording. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption for current photo used in article 

message: Seriously, when this place was an Palestinian village for hundred of years, then the place for some Jews a few decades...and the modern Jewish part gets  twice text as the Palestinian in the lead???
Guys, navel gazing much? Huldra (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Expand the section on the Muslim period (or perhaps add info on the Crusader stable, or previous settlements going back tot he iron age) - though one must note that for most of its history it was a very small village - the Muslim population peaked during the mandate period, but was low prior to that - and consequently there is little coverage of this place beyond census data, very brief travel log mentions, and a battle that occured nearby. The lede is presently one short paragraph - 126 words - there is nothing in the lede that needs to be excised, though the ordering does defy normal conventions (we usually state the last occupants first, prior to going into history). Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: one sentence on the Palestinian era, two on the very short Jewish era. Sorry, your navel might be interesting to you, but it is not that interesting to anybody else, Huldra (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

text: It is common for modern section to be larger than section about previous centuries> It is all a matter of sources. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is common for modern section to be larger than section about previous centuries" ...Huh?  ..This is rubbish, Debresser, and you know it.Huldra (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sources treat the modern era at much greater length than previous eras. It is in fact quite difficult to find much at all written on Lifta prior to the mandate period. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navel gazing much? 

message: There's a bit of a dispute over the sentence  with claims that it is unsourced .  That's not true; the referenced content  supports the claim, which is sufficient for this to be included in the lead.  That said, the sentence wasn't removed in the lead, only in the body (where it is very redundant).  I don't see any reason to repeat this sentence in the body where it was removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, every sentence/paragraph has to be sourced in the IP area, saying that it was sourced earlier in the article is not enough, I'm afraid. But I agree with you about the repeat. As for mentioning it in the lead, that is discussed above.  (see "Navel gazing much?") Huldra (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, not every thing needs to be sources in the lede - particularly when clearly sourced in the body. The date of the final depopulation of the village, in 2017, is clearly relevant for the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In 2017 the last Jewish residents left Lifta" 

message: This revert, based on the mistaken claim that the statement has no source, ignores that this is the article's lead, summarizing the article, and the sources are in the appropriate section. Huldra, you should know better than to repeat a mistaken edit that has been reported on WP:ANI just to thwart me. Now please undo your mistake. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See section above, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  So it was removed as being repetitive, not as being unsourced. So the edit summary was misleading. Anyways, so be it. By the way, obviously, something that was sourced once, does not need to be sourced a second time. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken revert 

message: In this change Gilabrand,  (who is still topic-banned  from the IP area) with a deceptive edit-line (="move down")  not only moves the "archaeology"-section down, but also changes the headline from "Attempts at biblical identification" to "Biblical era".  (Hmm,  I really should take Gilabrand to  AE for this).
I changed the headline back, this was reversed by User:Sir Joseph with  edit-line "non reason to use this subject header, keep all headers uniform, as in this is the Biblical age, the next one is iron age, roman age, etc. The section says there is an attempt at identifying Lifta as,,,,,"
SJ:  the difference between the other headlines (Iron Age, Roman and Byzantine periods etc) is of course that the evidence of those eras are undisputed.  The so-called "Biblical era" is, to be blunt: pure speculation.
Please change it back, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and changed back. nableezy - 22:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, you're using a POV header title, which of course is not allowed. The section is the era, and it's the Biblical Era, the section has the information about that section, and it discusses that there is information about if Lifta is the same as other places discussed during the Biblical Era. But the header should be Biblical Era. Obviously, it won't get changed back because this is a numbers game, but you are wrong. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not addressed the issue, namely that the info in the so-called "Biblical era" is just speculation. You make it sounds as if it undisputed. Huldra (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , It could be disputed, but the era is the Biblical Era. The information inside the section already says that. The header is supposed to be non-POV. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not the Biblical Era...it is the alleged Biblical Era. There is a difference. You are trying to make it into something undisputed, which it is not.  Huldra (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the section does not mention that there are those who disagree, this is undisputed. In any case, the word "Attempt" should not be part of the header, even if it were disputed, to keep the header short and simple. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  "considered by some" != "undisputed"; I thought that was obvious. Well, this has taught me one thing: to take Gila straght  to AE whenever she pulls such a stunt, Huldra (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest change 

message: This is a place with undisputed documented history going back hundreds of years.
Still, 4/5 of the lead is about what has happened since 1948? The is completely WP:UNDUE. I will (re)move some of the post-48 stuff into the "State of Israel"-paragraph, unless somebody can convince me of its "vital importance", Huldra (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of due or undue is not a function of years, but of notable events. I'd keep that in mind, and be careful not to remove too much from the lead. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the most basic reading of WP:N and WP:NPOV would prove that false. Notability has nothing to do with the content of articles. It is strictly a measure of whether or not a topic merits its own article. The in a nutshell of WP:N should make that clear. nableezy - 02:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much of the post-1948 is notable anyway. Zerotalk 02:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

text:  @nableezy The lead should summarize the article. The article should be about things that are notable. As long as you edit with these simple things in mind, everything should be fine. Debresser (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, again, notability has nothing to do with article content. Please actually read WP:N. It is strictly about whether a topic merits its own article. Notability has not one thing to do with the material within an article. nableezy - 14:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK: the Jewish residents never built anything, or left anything of physical nature there; as I understand it, they just took over the homes that were already there, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

text:  @nableezy Please read my posts again. I used normal English, not Wikilawyer language. When I said "notable" I wasn't referring to the Wikipedia notability guidelines, but simply to being notable, as in something that we should mention in the article, as opposed to non-notable events that we shouldn't write about. It is sad that I need to explain this. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thats just special. nableezy - 17:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: I would like to edit this page, as it is false historical narration of the expulsion of Palestinians from their houses. The narration is purely made to justify the acts of the Zionist Apartheid state of israel. 82.146.175.2 (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2021 

message: I only have 320 edits, and a minimum of 500 edits are required to update the Lifta page. I wanted to propose an edit to update the status of Lifta on the Wikipedia page based on this article from 16 August 2022: "Plan shelved to turn historic Arab village at Jerusalem entrance into luxury housing" Obversa (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the update after reaching the minimum of 500 edits threshold. Obversa (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit proposal to update the status of Lifta